View Full Version : Gear weight vs. Safety
The purpose of this thread is NOT to bash lightweight hiking.
However, it seems that, for many people, lowering gear weight is their primary (or sole) goal--while safety is an afterthought. I have a particular concern regarding inexperienced (to moderately experienced) hikers being so focused on reducing their gear weight.
Examples:
--Carrying clothes that are not warm enough for the conditions--just because the proper clothes would "weigh more".
--Not having adequate wet-weather gear because it would add weight.
--Lowering the weight of the food being carried--at the expense of having enough calories.
--Having a sleeping bag that is not warm enough for the anticipated conditions--just because it will save 10 oz.
--Using less-than-adequate footgear (for the conditions) because it is lighter.
Often, when a hiker reduces gear weight on certain items, they are also sacrificing a bit of comfort (and sometimes a little bit safety). The more experienced hikers have usually gained some skills and knowledge that help them compensate for this. "Newbies" generally lack the experience necessary to help them compensate for the additional challenges caused by using some lighter weight items.
Hikers (especially newer hikers) should try to make safety at least equally as important as reducing pack weight. It is probably better to let your pack weight continue to drop as you gain more knowledge and experience.
We old folks are lucky, we learned the ropes before we lighten our loads. Crawl, walk, run.
garlic08
02-22-2010, 15:38
Hikers (especially newer hikers) should try to make safety at least equally as important as reducing pack weight. It is probably better to let your pack weight continue to drop as you gain more knowledge and experience.
Absolute truth. Common sense and safety should definitely take precedence over trying to adopt an elite hiker's packing list. No way should I think, for instance, that if I bought all the same gear Ed Viesturs carries that I would be safe on K-2. But I would try to learn his techniques in a safe manner.
A warning can also be added about the problems associated with carrying too much. Two extra pairs of Levis, a two-burner Coleman stove piled on top of the twelve-pack, a lawn chair, and a motorcycle helmet (I actually saw this load once) can cause more trouble than a 40* sleeping bag on a 35* night. (The packer mentioned was fatigued, cold, disoriented, and limping back to his motorcycle at the TH after one night out.)
Mountain Wildman
02-22-2010, 15:45
I agree completely, I haved learned a lot thanks to the knowledge of people on this site, But I still make my own choices and aim towards comfort and safety. If I posted my gear list it would probably cause a heart attack or two since most are geared towards light weight. I figure I will shake down my gear over this year and finalize my pack inventory for my Thru in 2011. The abundance of knowledge on this site is amazing but as others have stated, What works for them may not work for everybody. I have camped since 1984 but never did more than day hikes without even a pack. My thanks does go out to everyone on this site. Just by listening in, So to speak I have learned a lot and will be better prepared because of it. But it all boils down to that old cliche. "Take it with a grain of salt"
JustaTouron
02-22-2010, 15:45
Examples:
I would add:
-- Relying on down instead of syntetics for sleeping bag and jaket. (with experience you learn to keep your gear dry, as a newbie it is better to have gear that still functions reasonably well when wet)
-- Improper shelter. A tarp is fine for experienced folks, a novice needs a tent.
I fully agree with your last sentence. They more you know, the less gear you need, and vice versa, but when ever someone says "I don't want to bash, but ..." or "I don't mean to be rude, but .." it seems they always follow the 'however' or 'but' by doing exactly that.
All of your examples, with the possible execption of wet weather gear under certain conditions, are comfort, not safety.
People don't die on the AT because they carry less food or wear sneakers instead of high boots. If they are above treeline in the north in the winter in sneakers, then yeah, but if they do that, they are totally unknowledgable and have bigger problems than just wearing sneakers.
10* in a sleeping bag is NOT the difference between life and death on the AT. Your sleeping bag should not have you being comfortable every night. Two or three nights of discomfort will not harm you, nor will a night of sitting up with all your clothes on waiting for dawn, or starting to walk to keep warm. If you never are uncomfortable with your bag, you are carrying too much weight for over almost two hundred days just to be comfy for two nights. Don't do it.
Wet weather gear is good to have, but it doesn't have to be heavy and it doesn't have to include pants.
If you never want to experience discomfort, pile on the gear. But it isn't necessary.
Carry what you need to survive. It doesn't have to be heavy.
Also factor in age. If you are young, strong and stupid, carry as much as you want. Just get a pack with good suspension and off you go.
When you are old, too much weight will ruin your hike, or worse, cripple you. A good suspension pack is worthless to geezers with bad knees, hips or ankles. Your bum knee doesn't care if the weight it transferred from your shouldes to hips. It still feels every pound.
The purpose of this thread is NOT to bash lightweight hiking.
However, it seems that, for many people, lowering gear weight is their primary (or sole) goal--while safety is an afterthought. I have a particular concern regarding inexperienced (to moderately experienced) hikers being so focused on reducing their gear weight.
Examples:
--Carrying clothes that are not warm enough for the conditions--just because the proper clothes would "weigh more".
--Not having adequate wet-weather gear because it would add weight.
--Lowering the weight of the food being carried--at the expense of having enough calories.
--Having a sleeping bag that is not warm enough for the anticipated conditions--just because it will save 10 oz.
--Using less-than-adequate footgear (for the conditions) because it is lighter.
Often, when a hiker reduces gear weight on certain items, they are also sacrificing a bit of comfort (and sometimes a little bit safety). The more experienced hikers have usually gained some skills and knowledge that help them compensate for this. "Newbies" generally lack the experience necessary to help them compensate for the additional challenges caused by using some lighter weight items.
Hikers (especially newer hikers) should try to make safety at least equally as important as reducing pack weight. It is probably better to let your pack weight continue to drop as you gain more knowledge and experience.
Snowleopard
02-22-2010, 16:09
Examples:
--Carrying clothes that are not warm enough for the conditions--just because the proper clothes would "weigh more".
--Not having adequate wet-weather gear because it would add weight.
These two can kill you.
Even experienced hikers can run into trouble in conditions beyond their experience. AT thru-hikers have a lot of experience when they reach the White Mountains, but not always above tree line White Mountain experience. I've read more than one trailjournal that describes the journalist or others on the trail in various stages of hypothermia going through the presidential range in NH. I've read of instances of a dozen or more hypothermic hikers huddled in the summit building on Mt. Washington.
On the other hand, there are a lot of newbie hikers who spend a lot of money on stuff that's too heavy for what they're doing. New hikers often just carry too much stuff. If you can't wear all your clothes simultaneously, you have redundancy and can drop some without reducing safety much. I suspect it's common for newbies with heavy packs to have too few layers of clothing for the worst conditions. Your layers need to be sized to fit over each other with rain gear over all.
I suspect for most thru-hikers, all they need to add for the Whites is rain pants and parka (not poncho), carry two fleece jackets, warm hat and mittens. In NH, you need to be prepared for heavy rain at 33F with 50mph to 100 mph winds. Snow and 20F is easier.
I reduce my pack weight for safety reasons.
I increase my pack weight for safety reasons.
The optimal weight for me depends on the season.
It is still alot less in winter than most of the folks I see in summer.
Some people might go too light. Many more people suffer for going too heavy.
The biggest thing about reducing pack weight is to try things out first in safer conditions before you find yourself in a situation where you really need it. Try imagining how you will use it in the worse of conditions ahead of time.
Sometimes, all it takes is camping out in the backyard during a cold spell or in rain. Or picking a short trip where you are near the trail head and can bail out if necessary. I never understood the people who head out on a long trip with new gear (that is different from what they are use to) and they never tried it even once.
It took me years of slow experimentation before I felt comfortable with a baseweight under 10lbs. And there are times when I choose to go above that.
scottdennis
02-22-2010, 16:45
Had a saying in the Marine Corps, "it's easy to be hard, but it's hard to be smart." Could I go out and survive for weeks on in with nothing but a field knife? Yes. Do I want to unless I'm absolutely forced to do so? NO!
I must admit, I'll likely never thru-hike. I just can't take the time to be our of pocket that long. I have a great respect for those of you who have done it, or are planning to do it. So this post in no way is an insult or anything.
I think we all have to learn on our own what is "necessary" and what is a "luxury." Often times, what is a must for me is a luxury for someone else (i.e. if I don't have caffeine I can't function, LITERALLY!).
No one person has all the information or "knows it all." That's why this forum is so great! :)
This I know.
If you listen to most outfitters, you will buy and carry too much gear.
Even to the point of being unsafe.
I have noticed a lot of threads critical of light weight hiking. Get over it. HYOH.
Appalachian Tater
02-22-2010, 17:00
Has anyone actually seen a hiker get in trouble because they were overly concerned about weight as opposed to just not knowing what they should be carrying? I met an ultra-lightweight hiker who was carrying only Fritos corn chips for food which I found amusing but for a couple of days wouldn't kill you and would provide plenty of carbs and fat.
Regarding hypothermia, it doesn't have to be really cold for you to get into trouble if you are wet--it can happen in the middle of the summer in Florida. Your body temp just has to drop a few degrees for it to start. An early sign that should not be ignored is shivering--you need to get dry and warm ASAP.
You are at higher risk if you are sick, an infant or child, older, or are using certain drugs including prescription drugs and alcohol.
People misjudge risks all the time--hypothermia or tick-borne diseases are MUCH more likely while hiking than some mad killer stalking you.
I agree with several of the posters who say that too heavy of a pack also has the potential to ruin (or end) a person's hike. (20-30 years ago, I frequently hiked with 45-65 lbs. I am currently lightweight and reducing. I may one day even reach the "ultralight" level. The older I get, the lighter I like my pack to be!).
Frosty: I would agree with you that the issues that I pointed out are a perhaps a COMFORT issue for a more experienced hiker. However, for a newbie, they can become a health and safety issue. I am not worried about someone having an occasional cold and uncomfortable night with little or no sleep. Anyone who has done much hiking has probably lived through that experience numerous times. I am definitely not saying that someone has to carry heavy raingear that includes pants. (Just appropriate raingear that keeps you dry without easily ripping and becoming useless).
I am more concerned about the inexperienced hiker who is already cold, wet and undernourished due to a lack of experience (and perhaps due to equipment that is inappropriate for their needs)--and who must now try to use a lightweight sleeping bag when the temps are 20* colder than the rating of the bag. At that point, we have the potential for hypothermia. THAT is the concern that I am expressing.
I really don't believe that I am bashing lightweight hiking. I am merely cautioning people against going more lightweight than their current level of experience can safely tolerate.
This business of newbies and carrying more weight, etc. The problem of being a newbie is compounded when the newbie is not in good physical condition. The concern over trail injuries during the first few days/weeks of hiking is not unrelated to the excess weight some carry.
If one has been sedentary (office/school/store/driver/etc), getting on a trail cold and trying to make big miles is asking for trouble. Add a heavy pack, doing everything the hard way, and you're almost certain to have injuries and difficulties.
The proper way to begin is slowly. Do short mileage, never go too far away from home/car, in case you have to bail, or want to retune the equipment, etc. Gradually up the mileage and time away from home base as you learn new skills and as your muscles/tendons/ligaments/cartilage/bones get used to the new stresses you are putting them under. Muscles react fastest. The rest require much longer to adapt, so when you experience the common connective tissue injuries, like shin splints and foot/joint pains, you are getting a signal to back off and take it slowly again.
If you do this right, by the time you are trying to carry a full pack, you will have tried out the various rigs, and will know what works for you, and how heavy a load you can comfortably carry. Of course this will still vary as you get stronger and more skilled. But by the time you are ready to attempt a long trail, you should be either strong enough to get away with doing it wrong, or skilled enough to do it right. The young can get away with more than the old. But truly, the active can get away with more than the sedentary.
So, if you are sedentary, begin right away with a walking program. After a time you will notice that you can walk a considerable distance without discomfort. When you can walk all day, you can begin to carry a pack, and before too long you will be safe on a trail in the woods. Then you can begin to practice your camping/overnight skills, and before much longer you will be ready to start a long trail. Slowly.
Something I wrote. A version of this blurb appears in Yogi's PCT handbook:
One sunny summer day in 1998, I summited Katahdin in Maine. I had climbed one of the most majestic mountains in the east, and I had finished a thru-hike of the Appalachian Trail. It was memorable day, and one I look back on fondly. A week or so later, my knees were in pain. I was 24 years old, and I was hobbling up and down stairs more like an elderly relative rather than a young man.
It would take almost a month for my body to truly recover. Why was I in so
much discomfort at such a young age? I was muscular, fit, and in terrific shape.
Yet, I had trouble walking up a simple flight of stairs. Why?
WHY LIGHTEN UP?
Many people say the Appalachian Trail (AT) is perhaps more physically demanding than the other long distance hiking trails. Parts of the AT are indeed
more steep than anything found on the Colorado Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail, Continental Divide Trail, or other trails. However, when I thru-hiked the three-hundred mile long Benton MacKaye Trail with its grades more difficult than the nearby AT, I was climbing steadily up the mountains and comfortably hiking about 25 miles per day.
What changed? I was a more a experienced hiker. I was in better shape mentally and physically than I was on my AT hike. And my gear was lighter.
After my hike of the Appalachian Trail, I vowed never to carry 50 pounds up and down mountains consistently again. Over the course of the next year, I read various online resources about cutting my weight down. Went to a smaller pack. Made a homemade alcohol stove. Cut down my sleeping pad. I did the physically demanding Long Trail of Vermont in 1999 and felt great. The AT thru-hikers that year were a little incredulous over my small pack. When I hiked the Pacific Crest Trail in 2002, my Base Pack Weight (BPW – all your gear in the pack minus food, water, and fuel) was now half the weight of my AT gear.
The adventure of hiking the PCT was fantastic. Incredible vistas, experiences I will not forget . . . . and I felt great at the end of the journey. With lighter gear, the climbs were easier. My body was less tired. And the overall hiking experience was much more enjoyable.
When I hiked the Colorado Trail with its long resupply stretches, high elevation trail and long climbs, the lighter kit really came into its own. I was able to carry more food due to the lighter pack weight. Any inclement weather or shortened days could be dealt with because of my longer and faster pace. The trail was not something to survive, but an experience to revel and enjoy.
My gear continues to evolve, but my basic setup has not changed since the PCT: frameless pack, trail runners instead of boots, a good down bag, a simple shelter in lieu of a tent, a cut-down foam pad, and so on. I would not go on any future walks with my Appalachian Trail gear; I could do future hikes with my PCT gear.
ULTRALIGHT PHILOSOPHY
In the process of lightening my load, I’ve come to come look at gear as why I should take a particular piece of gear rather than what specific gear I should take. I do not consider myself an ultralighter. To me that term brings up too technical of an image where the emphasis is on gear and not on enjoying the trail. While gear is important, I think it is the LEAST important part of hiking. I use gear to hike . . . . not hike to use gear.
Rather, I think of going light as going minimalist for a person's own personal safety, comfort and fun levels. For me, on three-season solo hikes, it is pretty scant. No stove is taken, a very simple tarp and a thin pad is part of my kit. On social backpacks (more camping, less hiking), I’ll take a stove, a book, and perhaps a small libation for at night.
Why do I advocate this method? Because is simple. There is little to come between me and how a person can enjoy the outdoors. The simple act of walking is enjoyed without worrying about how heavy the gear is on the back. A backpacker is not exhausted in camp but can appreciate the sunset over the mountains, the sound of the wind in the trees, and can contemplate the wonderful day that was just experienced.
Over the years my gear has changed and evolved. There was a gradual decline in my base pack weight. I am at the level now where I can get lower only if I spend more money for shaving ounces rather than pounds. It gets to the point that I have to ask myself how much money is worth spending to lose more weight in my pack? I also emphasize again that I am really not into gear. It’s just a tool for me. Or, to put it differently, as one thru-hiker friend said to me, “Losing pounds is cheap; losing ounces is expensive.”
To me, that can refer to money, time, or comfort. Each hiker has to find for themselves what that balance is between comfort while hiking and comfort while in camp.
There is definitely more than one way to approach going lightweight. Most backpackers can easily get into the 15-20 pound BPW range without making any radical changes in their hiking and camping styles. The newer gear made by many companies is functionally equivalentto older style, more traditional gear, but is also much lighter.
SOME SIMPLE CHANGES
A good friend of mine is a prime example of how anyone can benefit from a lighter kit. He wanted to enjoy hiking . . . . but also be comfortable in camp. Backpacking was no longer a pleasure but a trudge. He’d be achy, sore, and exhausted at the end of the day. He asked me to look over his gear and give some recommendations. When a gear make over was done, a framed pack was purchased, along with a good down sleeping bag, and a light synthetic jacket. A small pot, a canister stove, a light two-person tent, and even a relatively light Therm-a-Rest completed the kit. Gear was chosen for his style and not mine.
The end result of this gear makeover? His BPW is 17 pounds. Most people do not have to take heavier gear than that (or so) if they are in a position to buy new gear. His gear is functionally the same as traditional gear . . . . but without the weight. It is not any less safe and does not require any more knowledge of its use or sacrifices in comfort versus traditional gear. And his comfort level in camp is no different. Needless to say, his comfort level while HIKING is much better. (Well, actually his comfort level in camp is better now. He is no longer as tired and sore!)
ASSESS YOUR HIKING STYLE
As other experienced hikers have noted, it is more difficult to go below 15 pounds in BPW. The gear starts becoming more expensive and/or you need to go more minimalist. If you are the type of person to hike all day versus spending time in camp, a more minimal kit may be for you. A cut-down foam pad vs. a Therm-a-Rest, a simple lined windshirt vs. a heavier jacket, and so on, will work well. Do an honest assessment of your hiking style. If you want some camp comforts and want more of a traditionalist setup, go for the 15- to 20- pound BPW Hike more than camp? Tweak your gear to fit a lesser weight range.
SUB-10 POUND BPW REQUIRES EXPERIENCE
Below 10-pound BPW? You better be comfortable, knowledgeable, and experienced in a wide range of outdoor situations in addition to being comfortable with a minimalist kit. As more than one hiker has found out, it is one thing to read about the joys of going sub-10 pounds on the Internet. It is something completely different to use this gear in real world situations. What is your experience level? Are you honestly comfortable in whatever Mother Nature may
throw at you? Have you used this very minimalist kit before? Finding out you do not know how to set up your tarp, that you hate going stove-less, and that you wish you went with a thicker pad is easier to deal with on a weekend outing rather than in a Fall snowstorm deep in the San Juans.
I am at about 8 pounds 12 ounces now. (Get rid of the camera equipment? Right at 8 pounds). To go lighter would require me to go even more minimalist, sometimes pick and choose my seasons with care, and perhaps spend more money. I’ve reached my limit pretty much. And I’m comfortable with this weight.
Remember, there is no such thing as the BEST GEAR. Find out what works for you for your personal safety, comfort and fun levels. Remember it is just gear in the end. We use gear to hike the trails . . . . we do not hike the trails to use gear.
OTHER RESOURCES
Lighten Up! a Falcon Guide by Don Ladigin: A good “meat and potatoes” guide for those who are traditional backpackers and want to lighten up their load. Not as detailed as other guides, but sometimes too many details get in the way of the overall goal. A good guide for the WHY of going lightweight rather than the specific WHAT. Basically, start with this book if you want to go from a 30-pound base pack weight to 15 pounds.
Lightweight Backpacking and Camping, Edited by Ryan Jordan: A very detailed, gear oriented workshop in book form. If you want diverse opinions from many different people and wish to fine-tune your techniques, this book is a great guide. This book is more aimed towards high-end gear for lightening your load, and it definitely shows the analytical of backpacking gear, but it does give some interesting ideas from many different people. The editor is the found of at backpackinglight.com.
Beginners Backing Primer and Lightweight Backpacking 101 at Pmags.com:
This is my take on the basics of backpacking and going light. These documents have links to backpacking stove comparisons, other resources found on the Internet, and how to go lighter if on a budget. It took many miles, many years, and much tweaking to get to my current level of gear. I put together a list that shows how my gear evolved over the various trails/years. It may be instructive as you put together your own kit.
Beginners Backpacking Primer: http://bit.ly/1OCNWg
Lightweight Backpacking 101: http://bit.ly/47nlJY
My Evolving Gear List:http://bit.ly/VMPqA
Wolf - 23000
02-23-2010, 03:50
Frosty,
People do still die on the AT because of the elements or require very expensive rescues. How many times have you seen or heard of someone ill prepared trying to save weight and needing a very expensive ride out all because they they didn't want to carry an extra couple of ounces? It true that carrying less food normal will not kill you but it can cause you a lot of other health problems.
As for your example of sleeping bag, 10 degrees may not mean life/death by itself but the more stress you put on your body the more likely it will be to fail when you need it the most. A hiker with a good night sleep is going to be able to get out of a bad spot compare to a hiker who was up all night.
Wet weather gear as you said doesn't have to be heavy; as for paints part well I think that is a reflection on what type of hiker you are. I think if you started right now in Georgia you might rethink your position on how important paints are.
As for being young, strong and stupid well I'm younger than you, in good shape but still carry less than you. As I'm sure you will agree with this, you don't need a lot of equipment out there. What you do need is the experience to go with it.
Wolf
I fully agree with your last sentence. They more you know, the less gear you need, and vice versa, but when ever someone says "I don't want to bash, but ..." or "I don't mean to be rude, but .." it seems they always follow the 'however' or 'but' by doing exactly that.
All of your examples, with the possible execption of wet weather gear under certain conditions, are comfort, not safety.
People don't die on the AT because they carry less food or wear sneakers instead of high boots. If they are above treeline in the north in the winter in sneakers, then yeah, but if they do that, they are totally unknowledgable and have bigger problems than just wearing sneakers.
10* in a sleeping bag is NOT the difference between life and death on the AT. Your sleeping bag should not have you being comfortable every night. Two or three nights of discomfort will not harm you, nor will a night of sitting up with all your clothes on waiting for dawn, or starting to walk to keep warm. If you never are uncomfortable with your bag, you are carrying too much weight for over almost two hundred days just to be comfy for two nights. Don't do it.
Wet weather gear is good to have, but it doesn't have to be heavy and it doesn't have to include pants.
If you never want to experience discomfort, pile on the gear. But it isn't necessary.
Carry what you need to survive. It doesn't have to be heavy.
Also factor in age. If you are young, strong and stupid, carry as much as you want. Just get a pack with good suspension and off you go.
When you are old, too much weight will ruin your hike, or worse, cripple you. A good suspension pack is worthless to geezers with bad knees, hips or ankles. Your bum knee doesn't care if the weight it transferred from your shouldes to hips. It still feels every pound.
Prain4U, I think I undertand your concern. Got a legit pt. when looked at in context of gear wt does not equal safety. The heaviness or lightness of gear does not, all by itself, detremine safety.
Prain4U, I think I undertand your concern. Got a legit pt. when looked at in context of gear wt does not equal safety. The heaviness or lightness of gear does not, all by itself, detremine safety.
My concern is inexperienced hikers seeing all of the postings on WhiteBlaze (and elsewhere) regarding the "need" to go lightweight (and ultra lightweight) and those same inexperienced hikers "pushing the envelope" by cutting too much weight too soon. Generally speaking, you almost have to have some hiking experience in order to do lightweight or ultra lightweight hiking safely (and comfortably).
A heavier pack weight, in and of itself, does not equal greater safety (and too heavy of a pack has it's own added risks). However, a warmer sleeping bag will GENERALLY weigh more. Warmer clothes will GENERALLY weigh more. More food (with higher calories) will GENERALLY weigh more. etc.
Experienced hikers can often get by with carrying fewer changes of dry clothes--because they are typically better able to keep the first set dry. They are also more experienced at drying out wet clothes. Smaller and lighter weight forms of shelter are often less forgiving of a poor site selection or a poor setup. You tend to learn good site selection and additional tricks for setting up a shelter--as you gain more camping experience. Experienced hikers have often learned ways to stay a bit warmer and drier in a sleeping bag. Thus, they can sometimes use a "colder" (and lighter weight) sleeping bag than an inexperienced hiker.
To borrow a phrase: Size (or weight) really doesn't matter all that much. It is knowing what to do with it that really counts!
Something I never skimp on is clothing, even less so than the sleeping bag. I don't carry spare clothing, but it is enough to wear all at once in the worst possible conditions of that month, and still be warm enough even if soaked through. Of course in winter you would almost never be soaked through in 0F, but you might have to be prepared for freezing rain at 20F followed by a temperature drop to 0F, or whatever the climate data. Proper clothing and the ability to block the rain and wind and make tea goes a long way. Then you can push the e
envelop on the sleeping bag a little. It would still be warm enough for most nights, but maybe not for the climate extreme of that night. Clothing is key.
The trick is finding the poundage your system of gear and your body can handle comfortably, and then not exceeding it. I carry 40 lbs in my ULA Catalyst. I can tell ZERO difference between 30 lbs and 40 lbs on my back. 40 lbs does not in any way restrict me, make me more tired, etc. Would 20 lbs make hiking less tiring? Probably, but it would make camping suck for me. A typical day on the AT for me is 10 hours of hiking and 14 hours of camping. Easier hiking does not justify less comfortable camping, to ME.
That being said, I train for my section hikes with 70 lbs in my Gregory Shasta. Going from 70 to 40 makes 40 feel like nothing.
The thing I don't get is when people find that "happy medium" where pack weight doesn't get in their way and/or really matter anymore, but still feel the need to re-buy all new stuff just to save 5 lbs and somehow think that they're "better backpackers" for doing so. Let's face it, we ALL could be UL if money was no object. Maybe people just have more money than me. If so, I can see saying "Why not buy new stuff?" The only thing I've changed in my kit over the past 3-4 years is that I bought a Thermarest Neoair to replace my Prolite 4. I did it for the comfort factor, not the weight/bulk factor. It saved me a full pound.
But so does chugging a pint of water before hiking on as opposed to carrying it. I think that gear selection and pack weight is just one of the few things people planning backpacking trips CAN obsess about. Other than that, there's just getting there, getting home, money, and walking. Take ANYTHING, and a certain number of people of do it will obsess about some aspect of it. Backpacking just doesn't have that many things to obsess about, so pack weight gets a lot of that attention. Personally, I obsess about what to buy my kids and wife as souveniers for "daddy/hubby being gone for a week or two every year".
Bigben
NorthCountryWoods
02-23-2010, 12:28
The problem is what is a "safety" item, can have too many variables....weather, health, ability, location, etc. There will always be that percentage that run into trouble, regardless the gear.
There is no substitute for personal experience. The more you know about yourself and your ability in different conditions, the better judge you will be on what you do or do not need.
I do agree with the op tho.....many (not all) of the ultra-lighters will plan their trip on the "best case scenario" gear wise and allow safety to be compromised. They are playing the averages and you can't argue with their success.
I do believe this is a plan eventually destined to fail. You will most likely be lucky several times and things will be fine, however the more you hike, the greater your risk for being unlucky.
My concern is inexperienced hikers seeing all of the postings on WhiteBlaze (and elsewhere) regarding the "need" to go lightweight (and ultra lightweight) and those same inexperienced hikers "pushing the envelope" by cutting too much weight too soon. -Prain4u
Like I said, valid pt. I get that message. Hope everyone else does too!
Generally speaking, you almost have to have some hiking experience in order to do lightweight or ultra lightweight hiking safely (and comfortably). - Prain4u
A heavier pack weight, in and of itself, does not equal greater safety (and too heavy of a pack has it's own added risks). However, a warmer sleeping bag will GENERALLY weigh more. Warmer clothes will GENERALLY weigh more. More food (with higher calories) will GENERALLY weigh more. etc. - Prain4u
Be careful with these statements though. Generalities can lead to misunderstanding. Not totally accurate.
It doesn't take a more experienced hiker, in terms of being able to use gear or be "safe"(whatever that means), to switch from a backpack that weighs 5- 6 lbs down to a comparable volumed backpack that is just as comfortable, perhaps more comfortable, for carrying the same amout of load wt that weighs 2 -3 lbs. Seems, when purchasing funds become available, largely a No Brainer to me.
Same with sleeping bags. Generally(there is that word again), sleeping bags that are warmer weigh more! CAREFUL! All kinds of misconceptions can arise here. When making that statement you have to compare bags that are both accurately temp rated, have the same fill, have the same level of fill, shell, size, etc. There are important characteristics in the finished product of a sleeping bag that can change, including the warmth of it, when these variables are altered. I'll venture to argue some of my lightest wt high end down sleeping bags will be warmer and weigh less than a lower temp rated bag of lower quality or with different features. More hiking experience not required. Some folks can switch from a sleeping bag that weighs 3- 3 1/2 lbs to a comprable fill and temp rated sleeping bag that weighs in the neigbhorhood of 2 -2 1/2 lbs. No extra specific added gear knowledge needed, just a willingness to go lighter. Not all sleeping bags are manufactured with the same high priority of weighing less. That can be said of many pieces of hiking gear.
Tents are another example. It takes no added experience to opt for a single man tent/shelter that weighs in at 2- 3 lbs, maybe less, rather than using one that can weigh more than 4 lbs.
These kinds of weight saving choices are what I think of as the often easier decisions to make, partricularly, if one is a beginner hiker and is transitioning to or has recently decided to lower pack wt. This is like Stage 1. In this stage, which I recommend to everyone, beginner or savvy experienced hiker, this is when most will notice their largest wt savings, in terms of POUNDS. Makes sense!
I would say to anyone newly seeking to lose some pack wt., get this stage right first, understand your hiking style, get some experience, and then move on to even lower wt gear if so desiring.
From there, it depends on how deep you want to go into the UL river. Ankle deep, waist deep. Chest deep. Or go for a swim and let the river sweep you away. It can become a fanatical UL merry-go-round that has a hiker more focused on chasing a virtual world pack wt. than actually backpacking if you let it!
Will talk about the later stages some more at another time. Perhaps, we can get some of the BPL and other UL gear wonks to share some of their Stage 89 UL must have gear secrets. I'm one of them, just decided to not ride the UL merry-go-round as much. Got to learn to laugh at yourself.
Tipi Walter
02-23-2010, 18:49
The purpose of this thread is NOT to bash lightweight hiking.
However, it seems that, for many people, lowering gear weight is their primary (or sole) goal--while safety is an afterthought. I have a particular concern regarding inexperienced (to moderately experienced) hikers being so focused on reducing their gear weight.
Examples:
--Carrying clothes that are not warm enough for the conditions--just because the proper clothes would "weigh more".
--Not having adequate wet-weather gear because it would add weight.
--Lowering the weight of the food being carried--at the expense of having enough calories.
--Having a sleeping bag that is not warm enough for the anticipated conditions--just because it will save 10 oz.
--Using less-than-adequate footgear (for the conditions) because it is lighter.
Often, when a hiker reduces gear weight on certain items, they are also sacrificing a bit of comfort (and sometimes a little bit safety). The more experienced hikers have usually gained some skills and knowledge that help them compensate for this. "Newbies" generally lack the experience necessary to help them compensate for the additional challenges caused by using some lighter weight items.
Hikers (especially newer hikers) should try to make safety at least equally as important as reducing pack weight. It is probably better to let your pack weight continue to drop as you gain more knowledge and experience.
The majority of backpackers in the Southeast are waiting for the snow to melt and the temps to rise. I wonder why? It's because they don't want to carry the weight to get thru it and stay out. On one of my recent trips I was out during a long cold snap where for 10 days my night time temps never got above 10F(roving atop a 5,000 mountain most of the time). I didn't see a backpacker, an ultralight backpacker, someone with a tarp or someone with a hammock. Where were they? (BTW, a record was set in the Knoxville area for the longest cold snap under 32F since 1917--about 10 days).
A couple months ago I was caught in another blizzard and found several people bailing due to too-light gear: a guy with a tarp who was caught in a cold wind and snow spindrift, a woman with a Prolite pad who bailed cuz she slept cold all night from the ground up. I had a new Thermarest 3.8R pad buried about 4 miles away and I offered to go get it for her but her mind was set to bug out.
Just my pack and tent come in at 16lbs, a frightful number to most, but then again they are for the most part fair weather types who wait for Spring. And when conditions 'improve' they'll be out again in droves, brainwashed in part by the corporate mantra that all gear is better if minimal and ultralight. This philosophy blinds the newbs and so they think they have to jump on the UL bandwagon, and we old codgers and geezors get to write about their mishaps.
If anyone wants a great short chapter on this whole subject, check out Solo Girl's PCT trek on Postholer.com and look for her emergency SPOT call when her UL system broke down.
http://postholer.com/journal/viewJournal.php?sid=f4c29d32c6d8404833ae9021bfe642 44&entry_id=8688
T
If anyone wants a great short chapter on this whole subject, check out Solo Girl's PCT trek on Postholer.com and look for her emergency SPOT call when her UL system broke down.
http://postholer.com/journal/viewJournal.php?sid=f4c29d32c6d8404833ae9021bfe642 44&entry_id=8688
See also my caveat that I wrote about knowing how to use your gear and having the experience. I wrote that part with her in mind. :sun
I was caught in these conditions with lighter gear than her at 12500' plus FWIW:
http://www.pmags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=6088&g2_serialNumber=1&g2_GALLERYSID=fde03312c0d87a62df0b0e1d9c4998d0
I've also hike a fair bit. The chapter I wrote for Yogi's PCT handbook is specifically for people like the above website. Going light is great...going less then 10 lbs? Only if you know it works. :)
To repeat:
Remember, there is no such thing as the BEST GEAR. Find out what works for you for your personal safety, comfort and fun levels. Remember it is just gear in the end. We use gear to hike the trails . . . . we do not hike the trails to use gear.
Mountain Wildman
02-23-2010, 19:19
The majority of backpackers in the Southeast are waiting for the snow to melt and the temps to rise. I wonder why? It's because they don't want to carry the weight to get thru it and stay out. On one of my recent trips I was out during a long cold snap where for 10 days my night time temps never got above 10F(roving atop a 5,000 mountain most of the time). I didn't see a backpacker, an ultralight backpacker, someone with a tarp or someone with a hammock. Where were they? (BTW, a record was set in the Knoxville area for the longest cold snap under 32F since 1917--about 10 days).
A couple months ago I was caught in another blizzard and found several people bailing due to too-light gear: a guy with a tarp who was caught in a cold wind and snow spindrift, a woman with a Prolite pad who bailed cuz she slept cold all night from the ground up. I had a new Thermarest 3.8R pad buried about 4 miles away and I offered to go get it for her but her mind was set to bug out.
Just my pack and tent come in at 16lbs, a frightful number to most, but then again they are for the most part fair weather types who wait for Spring. And when conditions 'improve' they'll be out again in droves, brainwashed in part by the corporate mantra that all gear is better if minimal and ultralight. This philosophy blinds the newbs and so they think they have to jump on the UL bandwagon, and we old codgers and geezors get to write about their mishaps.
If anyone wants a great short chapter on this whole subject, check out Solo Girl's PCT trek on Postholer.com and look for her emergency SPOT call when her UL system broke down.
http://postholer.com/journal/viewJournal.php?sid=f4c29d32c6d8404833ae9021bfe642 44&entry_id=8688
I have never tried winter camping, Tipi, You must be the King of it. I have however purchased gear that I could use in winter. I come in a little under you, my pack and tent are about 11 1/2 lbs. But I have tried my best to purchase lightweight gear when possible. Bought the Feathered Friends Winter Wren, Not bad at 2 lbs. My large NeoAir would probably not be suitable for winter unless I put like a Thermarest Luxury Map under it.
I am definitely a newbie to backpacking but have been an avid camper since 1984. Thanks for what you do, You have inspired some of my gear purchases.
Tipi Walter
02-23-2010, 19:46
I have never tried winter camping, Tipi, You must be the King of it. I have however purchased gear that I could use in winter. I come in a little under you, my pack and tent are about 11 1/2 lbs. But I have tried my best to purchase lightweight gear when possible. Bought the Feathered Friends Winter Wren, Not bad at 2 lbs. My large NeoAir would probably not be suitable for winter unless I put like a Thermarest Luxury Map under it.
I am definitely a newbie to backpacking but have been an avid camper since 1984. Thanks for what you do, You have inspired some of my gear purchases.
And thanks for the compliment. I am not the king of winter camping although I do like to experience what winter has to offer. There's nothing like being out in it. There are some real kings of winter camping and many of them live up in your neck of the woods. And then there are the Arctic types who stay out for months.
I'm no expert on winter camping, in fact, I have never used crampons or snowshoes. I should of used crampons many times but didn't and instead I always took the 'fall-on-my-butt' approach and went without. But this winter has been especially "wintry" and cold and snowy, more than usual. Just during my last trip I was in three separate snowstorms. That's a lot for this neck of the woods(NC/TN mountains).
And Mags is right, with enough experience and willingness it's possible to encounter and survive, even thrive, in conditions which would repel most others. And to do so with minimal gear. Roman Dial's Arctic trek is proof of this. Sometimes the reason I carry so much gear is because I want to be caught in a 5 day blizzard and a below zero cold snap and sit tight. Hunker in. It's nice having a tiny warm nest in a howling maelstrom. And knowing I'm one of the lucky few who get to experience it.
Mountain Wildman
02-23-2010, 19:59
And thanks for the compliment. I am not the king of winter camping although I do like to experience what winter has to offer. There's nothing like being out in it. There are some real kings of winter camping and many of them live up in your neck of the woods. And then there are the Arctic types who stay out for months.
I'm no expert on winter camping, in fact, I have never used crampons or snowshoes. I should of used crampons many times but didn't and instead I always took the 'fall-on-my-butt' approach and went without. But this winter has been especially "wintry" and cold and snowy, more than usual. Just during my last trip I was in three separate snowstorms. That's a lot for this neck of the woods(NC/TN mountains).
And Mags is right, with enough experience and willingness it's possible to encounter and survive, even thrive, in conditions which would repel most others. And to do so with minimal gear. Roman Dial's Arctic trek is proof of this. Sometimes the reason I carry so much gear is because I want to be caught in a 5 day blizzard and a below zero cold snap and sit tight. Hunker in. It's nice having a tiny warm nest in a howling maelstrom. And knowing I'm one of the lucky few who get to experience it.
I'm with you, I have purchased a lot of gear to be comfortable and prepared for whatever may happen. It's 30 degrees here in Gorham so it is actually pretty warm for this time of year. My M.R. G7000 came in today and my tent should be here in a couple days, I can't wait to get out there, I was going to wait until spring but I don't know if I will last that long. Maybe I will try winter backpacking!!
Just my pack and tent come in at 16lbs, a frightful number to most... Tipi wealter
Is that 16 lbs just pack and just tent? Nothing in the pack? LOL Is that listed wt your winter gear set-up? You must be a gorilla sized hiker or someone who limps a lot and probably has hip and back problems. Hey, at least you can say you are warm though. Only kidding TW. If it works for you happy hiking - I think.
Blissful
02-23-2010, 20:19
More than likely, inexperienced hikers will tote too much because they don't know what to expect or what to bring, and that usually means heavy cheap gear. I've not known inexperienced to go ultralight
Technically Tipi is his dog's sherpa.
You have to undergo special training for that sort of work.
I'd go so far as to extend Tipi the title of honorary Canadian for his dedication to winter camping... Jak you wanna toss in a second to make it official? Not to mention he writes the most entertaining trail journal of the bunch...
Back to the topic at hand... Beginners most definitely get misled by some of the UL preachers on this site, and even aside from that bunch, the general trend pushed on this board is always "lighter is better."
Rewind back to your beginning days of hiking and remember staring at all that new swag the outfitter talked you into.. Filled with anticipation to hit the wilds and put your gear and your metal to the test, against mother nature... You pause briefly to puzzle over how your gonna fit all that gear in your pack.... Finally you squeeze it all in and you mount your "freedom" on your back for the very first time and quickly quake under the weight... Then you question yourself and wonder how this is gonna work...
Well, eventually we all end up here seaking answers and looking for advise, and the message repeatedly being shouted here is "lighter is better"... The more thoughtful ones will also include that experience is recommended... But basically the message recieved is, "lighten your load son"....
So you return to your hefty pack, and start pulling things out making decisions with no knowledge of the consiquences for your decisions...
So, perhaps folks, (looking at you ULers) could use a little restraint and recognize that they achieved their light weight over a period of trial and error... Learning their personal tollerances and an understanding of how they can expect their specific gear choices to work in a variety of conditions... Beginners have not...
Sure offer suggestions and advise, but be sure to include the full list of comprimises included in such weight saving schemes...
Nah. I'm still pissed about that awesome game Miller and company played.
They couldn't have saved that one for the Russians? Now we gotta play them.
Besides, I think the Tipsters more of a Renaissance man.
scottdennis
02-23-2010, 21:33
Personally, I prefer the winter even though it means a heavier pack. There are few people to take the "prime spots." Plus I get a kick out of building quinzees and snow caves, etc.
Could I pay more money to shave off a few ounces here or there? Yes. Do I want to? Nope! For example, I carry my Marine Corps scarf instead of a pricey smartwool balaclava. Is the latter better? You bet! But my scarf and watch cap do great to keep me nice and warm when I need it. Most of the time, the scarf stays home. I usually don't get that cold that I need to protect myself to that degree.
A lot of my decisions on gear are based on "bombproof." I could tear up an anvil, so I tend to go with gear that can stand up to the rigors of my use. I know I'm paying extra in price and weight, but it works for me.
Personally I don't obsess over weight. For most people that I've seen, the main weight they need to lose is NOT in their pack, but on their GUT! (Me included.)
Mountain Wildman
02-23-2010, 21:37
Personally I don't obsess over weight. For most people that I've seen, the main weight they need to lose is NOT in their pack, but on their GUT! (Me included.)
Me too.
My pack is rated from 50 to 80+
If I lost 80 pounds I'd be right where I should be.
scottdennis
02-23-2010, 21:43
LOL! Perhaps not THAT extreme. :)
More than likely, inexperienced hikers will tote too much because they don't know what to expect or what to bring, and that usually means heavy cheap gear. I've not known inexperienced to go ultralight
Bliisful, that's a good observation!
So, perhaps folks, (looking at you ULers) could use a little restraint and recognize that they achieved their light weight over a period of trial and error... Learning their personal tollerances and an understanding of how they can expect their specific gear choices to work in a variety of conditions... Beginners have not... - DAJA
Good pt. Another good observation, one in which Ulers making recommendations(some ULers do make it a pt to note this) and those that take those recommendations she be aware of. It is after all HYOH. I take that to mean - also be responsible for the decisions you make about your hiking!
scottdennis
02-23-2010, 22:11
You know, the whole these ULers remind me a lot of the guys who wrestled in high school wearing garbage bags under their sweats in class and refusing to swallow their spit us and spitting in their plastic bottles.
LOL! All to shave a few ounces and "make weight." :)
Mountain Wildman
02-23-2010, 22:15
I have pretty much purchased all quality gear as light as I could get, the heaviest thing I bought is my backpack. But I am inexperienced in backpacking, I admit that.
I plan to shakedown all the cool goodies I bought and fine tune my gear for my Thru-Hike in 2011. I plan to leave Georgia March 5th. I was going to SOBO since I live near Mount Washington but that will only give me about a month of hiking out of Maine and I don't know if I will have steel hiker legs by that time to tackle the Whites.
More than likely, inexperienced hikers will tote too much because they don't know what to expect or what to bring, and that usually means heavy cheap gear. I've not known inexperienced to go ultralight
I think in most cases--you are VERY correct in the above observations.
However, as I read posts here (and elsewhere) I am seeing some pretty inexperienced hikers asking questions (and making comments) about their gear choices that seem to indicate that they are indeed trying to go lightweight or UL in some of their gear choices--without fully grasping the trade-offs that those choices entail.
DAJA sums up my observations and concerns pretty well......
Beginners most definitely get misled by some of the UL preachers on this site, and even aside from that bunch, the general trend pushed on this board is always "lighter is better."........
Well, eventually we all end up here seeking answers and looking for advise, and the message repeatedly being shouted here is "lighter is better"... The more thoughtful ones will also include that experience is recommended... But basically the message recieved is, "lighten your load son"....
So you return to your hefty pack, and start pulling things out making decisions with no knowledge of the consequences for your decisions...
So, perhaps folks, (looking at you ULers) could use a little restraint and recognize that they achieved their light weight over a period of trial and error... Learning their personal tolerances and an understanding of how they can expect their specific gear choices to work in a variety of conditions... Beginners have not...
Sure offer suggestions and advise, but be sure to include the full list of compromises included in such weight saving schemes...
What is the advantage of a heavy pack if a person can have functionally the same gear without any compromise in comfort and safety with a lighter kit? Bragging rights? More toys? More space used up in your garage? Backpacking is supposed to be about simplicity..not loading yourself up like a Beverly Hillbillies car.
I am reading a biography about John Muir. Care to research what he carried? ;)
Re-read my initial post about my friend. What advantage does have have carrying a DAJA or a Walter TiPi kit for three season CO hiking? :)
skinewmexico
02-23-2010, 23:51
Hopefully my WM bag won't be the death of me. Should have bought heavier?
It all boils down to using the right tool for your job. Whether you're Mags or Tipi.
However, as I read posts here (and elsewhere) I am seeing some pretty inexperienced hikers asking questions (and making comments) about their gear choices that seem to indicate that they are indeed trying to go lightweight or UL in some of their gear choices--without fully grasping the trade-offs that those choices entail. - prain4u
This is a legitimate concern! Again, it's my thought that we talk so often about HYOH from a defensive pt.. To me, there is a flip side to HYOH. Sure be mindful of our audience when making suggestions, but in the end allow others to also be responsible for their own hiking choices.
There certainly are a lot of marketing and agendas being pushed. Sometimes it's also done by those who who refuse to acknowlege the benefits of wisely lowering gear wt. Some who deride ULers, sometimes rightly so, simply don't have as a high priority dropping gear wt.
Tipi Walter
02-24-2010, 00:19
Technically Tipi is his dog's sherpa.
You have to undergo special training for that sort of work.
It's funny you should say this because on my January trip I had my dog Shunka short-rope me to the top of Mt Whigg. And he carried the oxygen.
Hopefully my WM bag won't be the death of me. Should have bought heavier?
It all boils down to using the right tool for your job. Whether you're Mags or Tipi.
There is a long argument about the "right tool for the job" theory. Some backpackers point out how conditions change radically from day to day, and therefore how their tools must change. This is most often seen in winter AT hikers bailing when their tools won't meet a sudden change in jobs. Usually it has to do with inadequate garments on the one hand and a too-light sleeping bag/pad combo on the other.
Then again, overall pack weight is totally dependent on trip length as a trip of 15 to 20 days w/o resupply will increase most "normal" weekend pack weights tremendously.
And one more point: Some of the worst tests of my sheltering systems have been not in the winter when packs are usually heavier, but in summer thunderstorms and windstorms on high open balds. If I elect to stay at such places, then I want to carry an amply guyed out four season tent to enjoy the freedom of that experience.
Winter backpacking always makes for a heavier pack, and it's easy for me to chide ULers in winter since conditions can get so awful and a whole range of multitools are needed, and this is really true in the Southeast above 5,000 feet. There's more wind and there can be snow and sleet in May. Many lowland ULers come out in the Spring to the high ground and get surprised and end up sleeping cold or wet or windblown. My big loads greatly reduce the chances of these kind of surprises. (Not to say a tree couldn't fall on me or a bear eat my head).
What is the advantage of a heavy pack if a person can have functionally the same gear without any compromise in comfort and safety with a lighter kit? Bragging rights? More toys? More space used up in your garage? Backpacking is supposed to be about simplicity..not loading yourself up like a Beverly Hillbillies car.
I am reading a biography about John Muir. Care to research what he carried? ;)
Re-read my initial post about my friend. What advantage does have have carrying a DAJA or a Walter TiPi kit for three season CO hiking? :)
MAGS, I agree with your points. I hope you don't think that I am trying to allege that "heavier is better" or "lighter is bad/dangerous". That is definitely not my belief --nor was that my goal when I started this thread.
This thread has already achieved what I had hoped it would achieve when I started it. Namely, encouraging people (especially new hikers) to consider factors OTHER than JUST weight when making gear choices. Posts like your long post early in this thread have helped make that possible.
In the hiking community, we do a pretty good job of preaching the gospel of "lighter is better". I am not so certain that we have done an equally good job of teaching people how to "go lighter" in a safe, responsible and well-informed manner. Weight is just ONE of MANY factors to consider when choosing the right equipment for you.
Weight is just ONE of MANY factors to consider when choosing the right equipment for you. - Prain4u
Good for you! As easy as it is to make your comment Prain4u it took me a while to really learn that and even longer to incorprate it into all my gear choices.
....Again, it's my thought that we talk so often about HYOH from a defensive pt.. To me, there is a flip side to HYOH. Sure be mindful of our audience when making suggestions, but in the end allow others to also be responsible for their own hiking choices.....
Agreed.
However, many new hikers don't possess enough information to make an informed decision. They don't possess enough knowledge or experience to know what questions to ask. Therefore, I believe that the hiking community has a "obligation" to present people with both the "pros" and the "cons" of any potential choice.
When it comes to lightweight (and ultralight) hiking--we (as a community) have done a pretty good job of telling people that "lighter is better". We have not always done a great job of pointing out both the pros AND the cons of going lighter.
Once we have presented people with the potential pros and cons of a particular scenario, we should definitely "back off" and allow them to "be responsible for their own hiking choices"
stranger
02-24-2010, 05:32
I think it's less about weight and gear and much more about personal needs and experiences. Until you get out there and figure this stuff out, it's very difficult to gauge what you will in fact need on a cold, rainy day.
Some hikers don't carry rain gear...ever, and some hikers can go with a summer weight sleeping bag in very cold weather...their experience has taught them that this is OK...for them!
For me...I do what I do, but I also don't post gear lists or recommend what to take or not take because well, my gear works for me, and to make comments to others about this or that, well...that's just not going to be accurate.
Going light (taking less gear or more fragile gear) reduces your margin of error , this point is not debatable. However, this does not mean that taking less means you are compromising your safety, as your experience is going to determine much more than a piece of gear ever will.
But to think..."Hiker X takes a 40 degree bag and tarp in winter so I should be fine" is just silly - because you are not Hiker X.
It's simply common sense isn't it?
fiddlehead
02-24-2010, 06:23
Experience is everything.
I know an ultra runner who thinks nothing of carrying a 6 lb pack (with food) to go 200 miles.
Ask Wolf 2300.
I saw him on the PCT with no pack, just a fanny pack, carrying about 6 lbs of stuff.
But, these people know that they can pull a 50 miler or more if they have to.
And aren't afraid to drink the water.
They've done it, many times.
Sure the newbie isn't aware of his abilities or fears yet.
He needs time to learn what his body is capable of and most importantly, whether he feels safe taking those chances.
It's a shame that manufacturers are still making and selling packs that weigh too darn much, like 5-6-7 pounds. Perhaps the worst offence is kid's packs.
scottdennis
02-24-2010, 09:18
I think it's less about weight and gear and much more about personal needs and experiences. Until you get out there and figure this stuff out, it's very difficult to gauge what you will in fact need on a cold, rainy day.
Some hikers don't carry rain gear...ever, and some hikers can go with a summer weight sleeping bag in very cold weather...their experience has taught them that this is OK...for them!
For me...I do what I do, but I also don't post gear lists or recommend what to take or not take because well, my gear works for me, and to make comments to others about this or that, well...that's just not going to be accurate.
Going light (taking less gear or more fragile gear) reduces your margin of error , this point is not debatable. However, this does not mean that taking less means you are compromising your safety, as your experience is going to determine much more than a piece of gear ever will.
But to think..."Hiker X takes a 40 degree bag and tarp in winter so I should be fine" is just silly - because you are not Hiker X.
It's simply common sense isn't it?
Unless Hiker X is a big fat butt that has his own climate system around him, I'd say he's pretty stupid for doing that!
Some people put TOO MUCH faith in their "experience" and I'm not just talking about newbies either. Look at the guy just recently who fell of the rim of Mt St Helens. He had climb that thing as many as 68 times and had complete faith in his skills. I'm sure he was completely aware of what a cornice is and the potential danger for them near the rim.
He was an experienced backpacker who did something extremely stupid and lost his life because of it. Not only that, but people has to put their life on the line in an effort to rescue him and ultimately recover his body.
"Experience" should NEVER replaces having the proper tools for the job. I'm not saying that you're wrong for paying more money and getting a light backpack, shelter, and sleeping bag that can function just was well as some of the heavier weight similar items. But I DO have a beef with people that take a sleeping bag liner out when they should be taking a sleeping bag just so they can be SUL.
LimpsAlong
02-24-2010, 10:28
First time I hit the trail I had a NF Crestone 60 loaded to 44 lbs for a week. I'm now toting a GG Nimbus Ozone at 24 lbs for a week. I've got all the essentials for spring thru fall with no compromise on safety. Knees and hips dictate pack weight for me but I'll not compromise safety for any reason.
There is a way to reduce weight without compromising any aspect of safety.
Live and learn.
LimpsAlong
02-24-2010, 10:45
First time I hit the trail I had a NF Crestone 60 loaded to 44 lbs for a week. I'm now toting a GG Nimbus Ozone at 24 lbs for a week. I've got all the essentials for spring thru fall with no compromise on safety. Knees and hips dictate pack weight for me but I'll not compromise safety for any reason.
There is a way to reduce weight without compromising any aspect of safety.
Live and learn.
When I hiked the Colorado Trail with its long resupply stretches, high elevation trail and long climbs, the lighter kit really came into its own. I was able to carry more food due to the lighter pack weight. Any inclement weather or shortened days could be dealt with because of my longer and faster pace.
If you find yourself in trouble 30 miles from civilization, how many days do you want to spend hiking out? One or 5?
It seems there's a trajectory people go on when they hear the ultralight news. Doubt and denial is one step. Prain4u will be preaching ultralight soon, you'll see.
I never see newbies going out with too little gear. I see them invariably carrying ridiculous loads. Full-sized folding chairs, pots big enough to cook soup for 12 people. Carrying a light load with high-quality gear can be warmer, safer and drier than a heavy load of silly, low-quality stuff that some salesman sold you at the gear shop.
garlic08
02-24-2010, 11:23
Experience is everything.
I know an ultra runner who thinks nothing of carrying a 6 lb pack (with food) to go 200 miles.
Those guys are amazing, aren't they? Once I thought I was doing a great job on a 90 mile stretch of CDT with two nights food, carrying less than 12 pounds. Then I meet Han Solo doing the same stretch in an overnighter, passing me like I was standing still, with his little 6 pound load (and tongues cut out of his shoes, a la Ray Jardine).
I know inherently that I did not have the speed or skill set to do that kind of hiking and would never even try. No amount of preaching about that kind of hiking would ever get me out there with that kit. But it works for some and is very impressive to see, and even inspires me.
I hope that's the case here, when ULers answer questions about gear, that we all have filters to apply only what will suit our hiking styles, and maybe get some inspiration to try something different sometime. I know there are plenty of frequent posters here that I filter out, and others I read every word.
I want to add that I used to do what prain4u says, which is to have a light load I just left stuff home. I used to carry a 1lb mosquito net bed-top thing instead of a tent. I got rained on. Not too bad, but after that I had to figure out something better.
At the same time, I think I've had way more cold nights in my zero degree bag than my 20 degree quilt. I'm not sure why that is.
Now that I've got my UL stuff pretty much dialed in, I discovered on my PCT hike last summer that even when I would lose an item, I still could think of a substitute to help me through until I could get a replacement. Sometimes I got a replacement and sometimes the substitute did the job.
The other day I did an ultralight day hike. I set off from my house with only a light windbreaker, some money, a phone and a credit card. I planned my route so I would pass by water fountains. I drank from little creeks that normally don't flow. When I got hungry, I walked out and went into civilization to get some food. It was as liberating as ultralight backpacking. And to me that's what ultralight is all about. It's about the freedom to take the trail as it comes. A little bit of preparation, exactly what you need, and no fears that make you overcompensate with "bomb-proof" stuff. You're not going to war. You're just taking a walk.
Rockhound
02-24-2010, 11:50
You'll never make it. You might as well just get rid of all that new gear. tell ya what. I'll take it off your hands for 20% of retail. PM me with a list of whatcha got.
scottdennis
02-24-2010, 15:31
I think ALL of us would agree that your pack can be too heavy. I think most of us would agree that your pack can be too light (yes I know there are some who do not).
I believe there is a fine line here. But if you fall in to the range of "a little too heavy" and "a little too light" then I guess that means you're just right (for fear of sounding like goldie locks).
I agree with Blissful that novice backpackers are much more likely to pack too heavy than to pack too lightly. I would also argue that the assortment of items in the pack is rarely the cause of really bad experiences--it's the cascade of poor decisions of all sorts, made by people so lacking in knowledge that they don't even recognize how ignorant they are, and blithely head into situations from which no gear would be able to rescue them.
If you find yourself in trouble 30 miles from civilization, how many days do you want to spend hiking out? One or 5?
It seems there's a trajectory people go on when they hear the ultralight news. Doubt and denial is one step. Prain4u will be preaching ultralight soon, you'll see.
I never see newbies going out with too little gear. I see them invariably carrying ridiculous loads. Full-sized folding chairs, pots big enough to cook soup for 12 people. Carrying a light load with high-quality gear can be warmer, safer and drier than a heavy load of silly, low-quality stuff that some salesman sold you at the gear shop.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
For the record, my pack/gear is already at the low end of lightweight and bordering on ultralight. Currently, my lightest weight setup (warm summer time) for my Big 4 (Pack, sleeping pad, tarp, sleeping bag) is 3 lbs 12 oz. My heaviest setup (good to around "zero" degrees farhenheit) is 6 lbs 15 oz. (Sleeping bag, tent, pack, 2 sleeping pads, and sleeping bag liner).
Again, I am all in favor of lightweight hiking. I am also aware that MOST newbies carry WAY too much weight and far too much gear.
HOWEVER, my concern arises from some of the questions and comments that I see on WhiteBlaze (and elsewhere) where hikers with little or no hiking experience seem to be making gear decisions based primarily upon weight.
There are many other factors to consider (other than just "weight") when selecting gear.
Wolf - 23000
02-26-2010, 03:27
I agree with Blissful that novice backpackers are much more likely to pack too heavy than to pack too lightly. I would also argue that the assortment of items in the pack is rarely the cause of really bad experiences--it's the cascade of poor decisions of all sorts, made by people so lacking in knowledge that they don't even recognize how ignorant they are, and blithely head into situations from which no gear would be able to rescue them.
Marta,
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you and I'll explain why. In 2006, I headed southbound from Hot Spring, NC to Springer Mt against the northbound flow. I started March 15 - April 1. Many of the northbounders that I ran into were freezing both on the trail and at night. There is simple to much of a push for newbies to travel lightweight. Part of the problem I see is too many former hikers tell novice hikers to travel as light as possible. Well a 2 - 6 ounce jacket is lightweight but really won't cut it when hiking in snow or down south in March/April.
As for "the assortment of items in the pack is rarely the cause of really bad experiences" well, many people get off the trail for different reasons, most within the first couple of weeks. I don't know the numbers for this but I think I could make a very strong argue that many of them left the trail because they unprepared that resulted in them having a bad experience on the trail.
Wolf
fredmugs
02-26-2010, 07:35
I didn't read through all the posts but it seems to me that going light is more closely related to being more expensive than a safety issue. I don't try to shave off every ounce because it's not worth the money to me. Having froze my rear off a few times in my hammock I would love to have all of those quilts people rave about but there's no way I'm paying that much for them.
I think there are two "light" issues. One is buying the lightest weight equipent possible to serve your purposes and the other is to skimp and hope you get away with it. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I'm way too anal to not bring enough stuff.
The go light advocates are not skimping.
I hear what you're saying, Wolf, and don't dispute it. It is true that one of the people who joined me on what was supposed to be a hike from Amicalola to Neels Gap over New Year's was crowing about his very light pack when we weighed our respective packs at the Visitor Center...and then he bailed the following morning after shivering all night.
But also starting out on a NOBO hike was a guy who had loads of clothing with him (and a pack weight of 55 pounds) but who was also shivering all night because he didn't know how to use what he had.
My feeling is that either guy could have been warm enough, if they had the skill to use what they had.
There is no cure for ignorance, except experience.
garlic08
02-26-2010, 09:44
I'll back up Marta on this one, based on my admittedly biased experience and a very small sample. And she did say "rarely", not "never"--there are always exceptions. In April of '08 I was hiking through the Smokies when a winter storm hit. My partner and I were the only ones I saw with pack weights under 40 pounds. Yet we were the only ones to skip Gatlinburg after two days of snow and temps in the teens. We had the crystal ice palace of Ice Water Springs Shelter to ourselves, and were all alone in the Park until we saw the huddled masses at the next couple of shelters (one of whom landed in the hospital with frostbitten feet despite the heavy leather boots). Why were the guys in running shoes and UL equipment still hiking comfortably? It certainly wasn't the gear.
I'll back up Marta on this one, based on my admittedly biased experience and a very small sample. And she did say "rarely", not "never"--there are always exceptions. In April of '08 I was hiking through the Smokies when a winter storm hit. My partner and I were the only ones I saw with pack weights under 40 pounds. Yet we were the only ones to skip Gatlinburg after two days of snow and temps in the teens. We had the crystal ice palace of Ice Water Springs Shelter to ourselves, and were all alone in the Park until we saw the huddled masses at the next couple of shelters (one of whom landed in the hospital with frostbitten feet despite the heavy leather boots). Why were the guys in running shoes and UL equipment still hiking comfortably? It certainly wasn't the gear.
Garlic--is it safe to assume that you are saying it was EXPERIENCE (coupled with common sense) that permitted you stay out there comfortably in running shoes and UL equipment?
Do you think that you could have done the same hike comfortably (and with the same clothes and equipment) as an inexperienced newbie?
There is no cure for ignorance, except experience.
I love this quote. I love this quote so much. :)
I agree with most here that the more experience you have, the lighter you're able to go. And, with proper planning, even a newbie is able to go much lighter now than they were even 10 years ago, and do so safely. But, if weight is the only concern, especially for a newbie, things can easily become uncomfortable for that hiker. And even sometimes dangerous... though I would say on the AT that the danger is very minimal, since it's such a well traveled trail.
Heck, I consider myself a pretty experienced long distance hiker, and I usually start off each hike with more/different gear than I end up carrying at the end of the hike. It's a continuous learning process. That's half the fun :sun
I think a lot of the newbies come in with their questions about weight but they are focusing on weight because they don't want to sound too ignorant. However, they aren't focusing on the right places to lose weight and I'll betcha that most of them in the end on the night before the trip start what-iffing themselves to the point that they put a lot more stuff in their packs than they'll really need.
Having heavy boots, big heavy jackets, tons of extra clothes and lots of doo-dads doesn't necessarily keep you warmer or make you safer. I have been a lot warmer and safer since I swapped all my gear out for lighter stuff. The lighter stuff is higher quality.
There may be some newbies who go lighter by leaving stuff out, and we know the right way to go lighter is to SWAP stuff out and leave UNNECESSARY things out, but the vast majority of people I see out there are carrying way more stuff than they need and laboring under heavy loads that can't be any fun at all and they're not even carrying better stuff that will provide a warmer, safer experience.
Most people also pull into camp at 2 and sit around freezing to death. Part of the lightweight kit is using the movement of your body to keep warm, hiking more hours. If that's not the experience you want, then yes, you do have to carry a lot more crap. But if you're cold, there's one easy way to warm up that doesn't weight anything: just keep moving.
I hear what you're saying, Wolf, and don't dispute it. It is true that one of the people who joined me on what was supposed to be a hike from Amicalola to Neels Gap over New Year's was crowing about his very light pack when we weighed our respective packs at the Visitor Center...and then he bailed the following morning after shivering all night.
But also starting out on a NOBO hike was a guy who had loads of clothing with him (and a pack weight of 55 pounds) but who was also shivering all night because he didn't know how to use what he had.
My feeling is that either guy could have been warm enough, if they had the skill to use what they had.
There is no cure for ignorance, except experience.
I agree with all of your points.
I would also had a generalization (which is obviously open to debate).....
Lightweight hiking and UL hiking are often less forgiving of "mistakes" and provide less of a "margin of error"--especially in the hands of an inexperienced hiker. Some examples:
--An experienced hiker with a 40 degree sleeping bag on a 30 degree night would probably fare better than the inexperienced person in the same scenario. (The newbie might have been wiser to carry a 15 or 20 degree bag--which probably would have weighed slightly more). The experienced person would probably pick a "warmer" site to pitch a tent (sheltered from the wind and not on a creek bed). They would probably be more experienced at keeping the tent and sleeping bag more condensation free--and hence, drier and warmer. They would use their clothing in a wise way in order to increase the effective rating of the bag
--A 14 oz NeoAir Ultralight sleeping pad will tolerate less "rookie mistakes" (such as poor site selection on sticks and other objects or "plopping down" on it in a rough way) than a 14 oz. (closed cell foam) Ridgerest sleeping pad.
-An experienced hiker has (hopefully) learned how to avoid overheating and getting needlessly sweaty in cool hiking temperatures. Thus, the experienced hiker may be able to get by with one less change of clothing than the inexperienced hiker--because the experienced hiker does not reach camp in clothes which are wet from perspiration
--An experienced hiker/camper might be better able (than an inexperienced hiker) to stay dry when sleeping under a smaller sized (ultra lightweight) tarp. An inexperienced person would probably do better with a tarp that was a little larger and made from a slightly heavier weight material (or even using a tent made from a bit more durable material).
People with greater camping and hiking experience are often better able to safely and comfortably use lightweight and ultralight weight equipment than inexperienced people.
(NOTE: I am NOT saying that "heavier" equipment automatically makes things better. Inexperience can hurt you even with a 55 lb pack full of gear. I am just saying that, in many instances, equipment that is a bit heavier weight is often more forgiving of "rookie mistakes").
The trick is finding the poundage your system of gear and your body can handle comfortably, and then not exceeding it. I carry 40 lbs in my ULA Catalyst. I can tell ZERO difference between 30 lbs and 40 lbs on my back. 40 lbs does not in any way restrict me, make me more tired, etc. Would 20 lbs make hiking less tiring? Probably, but it would make camping suck for me. A typical day on the AT for me is 10 hours of hiking and 14 hours of camping. Easier hiking does not justify less comfortable camping, to ME.
That being said, I train for my section hikes with 70 lbs in my Gregory Shasta. Going from 70 to 40 makes 40 feel like nothing.
The thing I don't get is when people find that "happy medium" where pack weight doesn't get in their way and/or really matter anymore, but still feel the need to re-buy all new stuff just to save 5 lbs and somehow think that they're "better backpackers" for doing so. Let's face it, we ALL could be UL if money was no object. Maybe people just have more money than me. If so, I can see saying "Why not buy new stuff?" The only thing I've changed in my kit over the past 3-4 years is that I bought a Thermarest Neoair to replace my Prolite 4. I did it for the comfort factor, not the weight/bulk factor. It saved me a full pound.
But so does chugging a pint of water before hiking on as opposed to carrying it. I think that gear selection and pack weight is just one of the few things people planning backpacking trips CAN obsess about. Other than that, there's just getting there, getting home, money, and walking. Take ANYTHING, and a certain number of people of do it will obsess about some aspect of it. Backpacking just doesn't have that many things to obsess about, so pack weight gets a lot of that attention. Personally, I obsess about what to buy my kids and wife as souveniers for "daddy/hubby being gone for a week or two every year".
Bigben
Starting from scratch, a very nice UL kit costs less than a very nice kit of traditional backpacking gear.
(NOTE: I am NOT saying that "heavier" equipment automatically makes things better. Inexperience can hurt you even with a 55 lb pack full of gear. I am just saying that, in many instances, equipment that is a bit heavier weight is often more forgiving of "rookie mistakes").
There is nothing forgiving about 55 pounds of gear. The person is more likely to be exhausted, or injured, when they find themselves in trouble.
Both extremes are less safe than the happy medium. More experienced hikers can go closer to either extreme, light or heavy. Less experienced hikers, need to be closer to the happy medium, which might be 20-30 pounds. Less experienced overweight hikers need to go a little lighter than that, perhaps 15-25 pounds.
There is nothing forgiving about 55 pounds of gear. The person is more likely to be exhausted, or injured, when they find themselves in trouble.
Both extremes are less safe than the happy medium. More experienced hikers can go closer to either extreme, light or heavy. Less experienced hikers, need to be closer to the happy medium, which might be 20-30 pounds. Less experienced overweight hikers need to go a little lighter than that, perhaps 15-25 pounds.
JAK: I think you have probably written the "definitive" statement that most posters on this thread could agree with. In just three short sentences you have struck a good balance between what all of the various "sides" in this "debate" have been trying to say in 71 previous posts. Folks might disagree on the weight limits you listed. (This IS WhiteBlaze and we WILL debate anything). However the sentences which I have highlighted really sum things up well. THANKS!
(Maybe you should now go and try to negotiate a Mideast peace accord or bring the Democrats and Republicans together on a variety of issues!)
I'm still not sure of your point....
It's just gear. Ignorant and experienced people are gonna get into trouble no matter totchkes they are carrying.
I am not an experienced hiker. I have done a few day hikes. I am not in the best of shape. I am planning on trying a thru hike with my son this year. We have packed our packs at me with 40lbs and him at 30 lbs. What has about kept us from even trying to do it, is the cost of the LIGHT WEIGHT things that we just " Cant get along without". I don't know if we will be able to do the whole thing. If we don't try we will never know. I turned to white blaze hoping to get encouragement. Not have half the people tell you that your not going to make it if you sleeping bag weighs 3lbs. Sleeping bags didnt always weight 2lbs. I have read a few books where the authors or the people they where with lighten their packs on the trail or with in a few days figured out what they need and got rid of the rest. I think the best advice I have heard and read was take your time. Enjoy YOUR hike. How about encouraging people to just try. If they dont finish the first try, maybe they will start to section hike. Give them list of things they should not go without, not the most expensive things they have to have. Give a guide line like no more then 1/4th of your body weight. Not your pack should be 25 lbs or you are setting youself up to fail.
My first WB post was 12/18/07 when I was planning my first overnight hiking trip. Fast forward 26 months and I've hiked ~1400 miles of the AT.
I would say that for me, experience matters more than gear. On my first trip, I was wearing blue jeans on top of Big Bald in 20 degree weather. I would never do that now.
I've learned a lot by trial and error and I've avoided a lot of problems just by reading these forums.
Ultimate new hiker shot: http://picasaweb.google.com/tbradnc/ATDevilForkGapToNolichuckyRiver328Miles#5146943565 309315874
I am not an experienced hiker. I have done a few day hikes. I am not in the best of shape. I am planning on trying a thru hike with my son this year. We have packed our packs at me with 40lbs and him at 30 lbs. What has about kept us from even trying to do it, is the cost of the LIGHT WEIGHT things that we just " Cant get along without". I don't know if we will be able to do the whole thing. If we don't try we will never know. I turned to white blaze hoping to get encouragement. Not have half the people tell you that your not going to make it if you sleeping bag weighs 3lbs. Sleeping bags didnt always weight 2lbs. I have read a few books where the authors or the people they where with lighten their packs on the trail or with in a few days figured out what they need and got rid of the rest. I think the best advice I have heard and read was take your time. Enjoy YOUR hike. How about encouraging people to just try. If they dont finish the first try, maybe they will start to section hike. Give them list of things they should not go without, not the most expensive things they have to have. Give a guide line like no more then 1/4th of your body weight. Not your pack should be 25 lbs or you are setting youself up to fail.
I don't think you are 10 or 15 pounds heavy because of 3 pound sleeping bags vs 2 pound sleeping bags. You must be bringing stuff you don't need. That is your choice. Spare us the drama.
Sorry if that was a little harsh, but are you each carrying a 10 pound tent, or what?
The happy medium I was talking about earlier is also the cheapest solution. Maybe sub 10 is more expensive than 15 pounds, but I really don't think 20 pounds cost more than 30 pounds. Quite the opposite. Hiking doesn't have to be expensive at any weight. It really doesn't. Alot of this rhetoric probably originates with outfitters trying to sell us more stuff than we really need, and we being too willing to comply. Whatever the happy medium is 15-25 pounds or whatever, skin out, that can be done very cheap, without compromising safety. What amazes me is that people seem to be so much on one extreme or the other, and they resort to the most extreme rhetoric to make their point.
Try some moderation. It's always a good place to start.
Wolf - 23000
02-26-2010, 21:02
I am not an experienced hiker. I have done a few day hikes. I am not in the best of shape. I am planning on trying a thru hike with my son this year. We have packed our packs at me with 40lbs and him at 30 lbs. What has about kept us from even trying to do it, is the cost of the LIGHT WEIGHT things that we just " Cant get along without". I don't know if we will be able to do the whole thing. If we don't try we will never know. I turned to white blaze hoping to get encouragement. Not have half the people tell you that your not going to make it if you sleeping bag weighs 3lbs. Sleeping bags didnt always weight 2lbs. I have read a few books where the authors or the people they where with lighten their packs on the trail or with in a few days figured out what they need and got rid of the rest. I think the best advice I have heard and read was take your time. Enjoy YOUR hike. How about encouraging people to just try. If they dont finish the first try, maybe they will start to section hike. Give them list of things they should not go without, not the most expensive things they have to have. Give a guide line like no more then 1/4th of your body weight. Not your pack should be 25 lbs or you are setting youself up to fail.
DeeDee,
The trail can be done both lightweight and also with a 30 - 40 pound pack. With that said, you need to do what is best for you. You should never do something that doesn't feel safe. There are a lot of knock-heads out that really push the Lightweight/ultra-light approach before some hikers have the experience or are really ready. It not the person who gave the advice on what someone should/shouldn't carry who has to suffer, it is the person who believe them.
Even someone of your internet writers really are not that good themselves. A while back a girl I was with made me read an article by John Shannon on lightweight and the only thing I could do was laugh. He had sources on lightweight but he himself was didn't understand how everything work. He was talking about pack weights light it was the newest and greatest thing that were around for the last 20 years but wanted to talk out his butt like he was an expert. You could tell he had limited experience. There are others but he is the one that came to mind as I wrote this.
My advise to you is this, you know better than anyone else what you will need out there. When you get out there and what to travel lighter, look inside your pack and take the extra stuff you don't need and move on. For some it could be an extra book or a heavy sleeping bag for others it could be extra clothes. You know better than anyone what you can leave behind and what you need. You just have to believe in yourself.
Wolf
I'm still not sure of your point....
It's just gear. Ignorant and experienced people are gonna get into trouble no matter totchkes they are carrying.
Exactly. And being somewhat experienced myself, I still will prefer
- A sleeping bag rated for much cooler temps than 40 degrees even if it's in the 60s at night
- A closed cell pad over any kind of air pad
- I still get sweaty even with one outfit to wear
- I still would prefer a larger tarp if the weather is going to be bad.
And yet my load is still light.
I think that new hikers who have no gear at all should start with the lightest they can get without going to any rash extremes. There's absolutely no reason to "graduate" from heavy to light if you don't have to. Much of the light stuff is better than heavier stuff anyway.
But if you have heavier stuff already, just go. Before you do, though, go through what you have and ask if you really really need it.
If it's something that is consumable, ask yourself if you really need to carry so much of it. If I'm going for a weekend, I don't bring a pint of fuel. I bring a couple of ounces. Enough to spill once or twice. I don't bring a full thing of mosquito repellent. I bring a tiny visine bottle of it. I can go a weekend without deoderant (heck a whole summer, too.)
For the non-consumables, ask a bunch of what-if questions and see if you can answer them by removing stuff and making do with something else. Do you really need heavy long underwear to sleep in? Can light long underwear and your rain gear keep you just as warm? Do you really need a cup, plate, bowl, spoon, fork and knife? Can you eat and drink out of your pot with just a spoon instead? Can you wear all your clothes at once and be warm enough, and if so, can you leave home all the clothes you can't wear at the same time? Do you really need a pillow or can you make one out of some of your other stuff? Are camp shoes really necessary if your hiking shoes are comfortable and dry quickly?
Now get out there and go! Start learning. I learned a lot hiking the PCT. I didn't know it all beforehand. I still know less than the average PCT hiker. There's a lot of stuff you can tolerate without dying. I still get to learn that lesson from time-to-time.
Good luck.
garlic08
02-26-2010, 21:22
Garlic--is it safe to assume that you are saying it was EXPERIENCE (coupled with common sense) that permitted you stay out there comfortably in running shoes and UL equipment?
Do you think that you could have done the same hike comfortably (and with the same clothes and equipment) as an inexperienced newbie?
I did mean to imply that it was experience that let us stay on the trail, rather than the gear. Mags says it well--with all this discussion about gear, it's really all very unimportant when it comes right down to it.
I would never have been able to do that hike through the Smokies with that kit in those conditions on my first hike, say. Nor would I have tried. It took a variety of skills, like drying wet clothing in the sleeping bag overnight (which many experts tell you not to do), using plastic grocery sacks ("bagtex") for the feet, keeping all insulation dry in the pack and walking fast to stay warm with minimal clothing worn, staying well-fed and hydrated in very adverse weather conditions, keeping drinking water and shoes from freezing solid overnight, etc.
By the way, nice job of moderating this discussion.
I was not complaining about my pack size. I know when I get out there and I feel more sure of myself or just plain tired of carrying a very heavy pack, stuff will be sent home or be left.
I just wanted you all to see that new hikers can get very discuraged by the things that are said or how you offer advice. (JAK prime example.) You are out there by yourself maybe another adult with you. I am a mother who will be there with my 13 year old son. No drama... my pack might be a little heavy due to the fact I need to make sure I can take care of him. Once I see what we need and what we can do I am sure it will get lighter. My point is you can say what you want. I live where the closest REAL outdoors store is 2 hours away. Think I am kidding I went to the biggest "city" around me, went to what I thought was a well known sporting goods store to get my pack and be fitted. The responce to that was we dont fit backpacks, didnt know they needed fitted. NO BS. Every thing I have learned and have put together has been from reading on here or books that I have read. all of which was recommened from someone on trail blaze. I was trying to make the point that guidlines for new hikers are sometimes better then being told your not going to make it because your clother or sleeping bag weigh to much. By the way my tent is 5.5lbs. Since i have never been on a hiking trip like this, I am just hoping I can keep up with my son. That he learns to enjoy and want to protect what we all like to walk through.
garlic08
02-26-2010, 21:49
DeeDee...Even someone of your internet writers really are not that good themselves.
...You know better than anyone what you can leave behind and what you need. You just have to believe in yourself.
Wolf
Good advice, especially the part about the internet. On this forum, for instance, you generally have no idea of the qualifications or background of the people giving advice. I know I have cringed or laughed at some of the advice here. And I know I've made some bone-headed statements.
If it helps to understand some poor-sounding advice, some hikers have relatively narrow fields of focus, as in "This worked for me, so it has to work for everyone." I'm no philosopher, but I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. And many of us middle-aged hikers who have discovered that lightening our loads makes hiking fun again for us tend to get overly excited about it, and assume everyone wants to hear about it. That's not the case, either, it appears.
I remember the first time I read Ray Jardine's book about UL hiking, I thought the guy was an absolute nut. The second time, after I hiked the PCT, I was amazed at how much he had learned in such a short time.
Turn on your BS filter and take the advice that sounds right for you. Put the rest in the hopper and maybe it'll make sense some day, maybe not.
I remember the first time I read Ray Jardine's book about UL hiking, I thought the guy was an absolute nut. The second time, after I hiked the PCT, I was amazed at how much he had learned in such a short time.
I thought the same thing. But I started trying his ideas out and I realized he really knows what he's talking about.
The first thing I tried out was wearing sneakers instead of boots. What an oh wow moment that was for me!
I think many folks discover at some point that the pack and tent they bought are way too heavy, and perhaps their coat or jacket also. Those are usually the biggest mistakes, both in terms of weight and money. Shame, because the extra money could have bought a great sleeping bag. I still use the 8 pound tent in the backyard, or car camping, so no real regrets there. The 6 pound pack I eventually gave away to my neighbour, to try and get him into backpacking. Heavy coats and jackets are ok in town. Still I am more apt to just wear a wool sweater about town, and leave the jacket in the car in case it turns to rain.
Once outfitters sell people a 6 pound pack they pretty much have them where they want them.
ok... I am guilty there I do have a 6 lbs pack not sold to me by the store but from online from REI. I watched a few fitting videos on youtube and figured I could do better online then in the stores I went too. I did spend the money for the tent, it is for both of us. My sleeping bag is 3lbs 2oz. Where my pack could stand to lose some weight is clothing. The mother in me is going.... have to make sure he is warm. I am sure we dont need 2 pair of thermals. The extra shorts maybe not. The pair of pants 2 at that not needed (plz dont hit me with if you buy the pants that zip off into shorts the you can leave out...). Here it is nothing to pay 119.99 for a pair of those pants. I just have to get rid of the need to have frame of mind. I understand this but lets face it, when you where new to hiking and it was your first long distance hike, didn't you want to try to make sure you had everything you "Needed". I am trying to make sure I have everything we need. The cost is real for me. Without having a good store around. Anything that is UL is at least 100% more then the heavier weight. Most of what I have bought is from outfitters online. Things like the light tent I bought from Cabelas for 150.00 cheaper then at the sporting good store near me. It is a eureaka. I thought I did pretty well. I have learned by wearing my pack around the house, how heavy it is and going to be. I do my steps, up and down 15 times a day. It was a shock. I am not as young as I use to be. I am also trying to make sure my son is not carrying to much.
fiddlehead
02-26-2010, 23:01
Dee Dee, I don't understand, your pack weighs 6 lbs and your tent weighs 5 1/2 lbs.
You say your clothes are the heaviest thing and your sleeping bag is 3 1/2 lbs.
Then you go on to say that you learned everything on this site.
I find that a little hard to believe.
Chances are, your body can't carry that kind of weight.
take-a-knee
02-26-2010, 23:11
A Kifaru Longhunter pack weighs 7#, it is designed for a hunter to pack 150# of meat (quartered elk or deer) out of the wilderness. A ULA Catalyst weighs 3#, and is all any trail hiker needs. A 6# pack for a hiker, with today's technology is nuts.
Wolf - 23000
02-26-2010, 23:15
I hear what you're saying, Wolf, and don't dispute it. It is true that one of the people who joined me on what was supposed to be a hike from Amicalola to Neels Gap over New Year's was crowing about his very light pack when we weighed our respective packs at the Visitor Center...and then he bailed the following morning after shivering all night.
But also starting out on a NOBO hike was a guy who had loads of clothing with him (and a pack weight of 55 pounds) but who was also shivering all night because he didn't know how to use what he had.
My feeling is that either guy could have been warm enough, if they had the skill to use what they had.
There is no cure for ignorance, except experience.
Marta,
I wasn't there of course but I'm sure you are right that either guy could have been warm enough if they had the skills. The problem I see in both cases is as you said their skill level and both guys looked at the equipment as gear to carry instead of looking at how it worked.
I'll explain with a TV show that I like Man vs Wild. (Yes I know he sometimes has help.) In one show, Bear Grylls use a soda bottles, and a canteen tin cup to make salt water into drinking water. If the average person had the same gear, most people wouldn't have a clue how he did it. One of the reasons I like the show is he shows people how he does it. I view UL backpacking the same way but the different is most UL hikers don't show others how the gear can be really used - they just post gear list and let inexperience hikers learn for themselves like the two guys you met. That were it comes don't to a safety issue.
Wolf
ok... I am guilty there I do have a 6 lbs pack not sold to me by the store but from online from REI. I watched a few fitting videos on youtube and figured I could do better online then in the stores I went too. I did spend the money for the tent, it is for both of us. My sleeping bag is 3lbs 2oz. Where my pack could stand to lose some weight is clothing. The mother in me is going.... have to make sure he is warm. I am sure we dont need 2 pair of thermals. The extra shorts maybe not. The pair of pants 2 at that not needed (plz dont hit me with if you buy the pants that zip off into shorts the you can leave out...). Here it is nothing to pay 119.99 for a pair of those pants. I just have to get rid of the need to have frame of mind. I understand this but lets face it, when you where new to hiking and it was your first long distance hike, didn't you want to try to make sure you had everything you "Needed". I am trying to make sure I have everything we need. The cost is real for me. Without having a good store around. Anything that is UL is at least 100% more then the heavier weight. Most of what I have bought is from outfitters online. Things like the light tent I bought from Cabelas for 150.00 cheaper then at the sporting good store near me. It is a eureaka. I thought I did pretty well. I have learned by wearing my pack around the house, how heavy it is and going to be. I do my steps, up and down 15 times a day. It was a shock. I am not as young as I use to be. I am also trying to make sure my son is not carrying to much.It took me awhile to slowly shed clothing weight. Eventually I found it easier to keep one set of clothing dry that two sets. Still, when I hike with my 60 pound 10 year old daughter, I carry more clothing for her than I do for myself. lol
My clothing is cheap though. Rarely do I pay more than $40 for an item. Usually $20. Some items less than $10, even wool sweaters at Frenchies (thrift clothing store in eastern canada) The real secret is not to accumulate more than you need. ok guilty again. lol. The good stuff is pretty durable. Wool is somewhat less durable, but still very durable if you care for it. The great thing about wool is you don't need to wash it every time you wear it.
I keep an eye out for 80% wool dress socks at $2/pair. For underwear I use flannel boxers. Cotton, but one pair is manageable, and I can wear my polyester leggings while they are drying. It's fun figuring this stuff out. I don't skimp on clothing weight, but I only bring enough for one set for the worst weather I might get that month. I use 1oz per degF below 85F as a rule of thumb. So roughly 4-5 pounds of clothing for 5F to 20F. That doesn't include shoes or rain gear. 3 pounds in summer for lows of 40F. 6-7 pounds in January up here, just in case. Most of it stays in my pack, unless it get freakishly cold, which is what I plan for. I like to keep the wool on, and keep the fleece as the extra layers.
Enjoy your travels. Don't sweat the small stuff.
I still carry all my daughters stuff, even though she is 10. She is still rather small though. I am sure you son is bigger. She doesn't really have more clothing than me. About the same I think. I am not sure how much her clothing weighs. I would guess maybe half as much. Not sure. She is 4'3", 60 pounds. I am 6' 200 pounds. I think she still has half my surface area though, maybe not. I think half as much clothing weight is about right though, to be safe. They are supposed to have higher metabolisms, but when they get cold they really shut down, and that is not something I plan on letting happen. Sometimes I look to see what layers of mine will also work for he if needed. On day hikes I bring a wool blanket instead of a ground pad. We haven't done winter overnights yet. Maybe next winter. We haven't done long hikes. Just the Fundy Footpath. Lots of fun though. Short hikes are a great way to figure things out. I am not sure how I would do on a long hike. One week at a time I guess. Good hiking.
Hiking with kids is the best.
SGT Rock
02-27-2010, 01:02
I view UL backpacking the same way but the different is most UL hikers don't show others how the gear can be really used - they just post gear list and let inexperience hikers learn for themselves like the two guys you met. That were it comes don't to a safety issue.
Wolf
Excellent point. When you read someone just using a wind shirt and pants as his winter clothing, what he may not be telling you is he ends up stuffing leaves in them to stay warm. Or a guy that just has a poncho listed as his shelter may not say that he sleeps in shelters 99% of the time.
I guess some things are self explanatory like a tent is a tent. But when doing the more out there sorts of gear things, just copying someone's gear without knowing how or why he uses that stuff is about useless.
Have not read every single post. The title of this thread is gear weight vs safety. I'd just like to add; IMHO heavy packs are not safe.
A Kifaru Longhunter pack weighs 7#, it is designed for a hunter to pack 150# of meat (quartered elk or deer) out of the wilderness. A ULA Catalyst weighs 3#, and is all any trail hiker needs. A 6# pack for a hiker, with today's technology is nuts.
Of course I agree with you, but that's what they keep selling people. It's even harder to find a light pack in children's sizes. Don't even get me started on boy scouts. There's a perfect opportunity for them to develop and make available a line of packs suitable for children and teenagers. They fail miserably. Why? If they don't get it right, what the heck are they doing? They are supposed to be the experts. School packs is another. Too heavy even before the books go in. Have you seen school yards lately. That can't be good.
L.L.Bean is another. Do they not care about children. I complained about the weight of the packs to the salesman. He dismissed me right away, telling me a lighter pack would never hold up. Such total BS. The schools are just as bad for letting kids come and go with 20 pounds. It is a constant battle in my house getting my daughter to lighten up. She will carry a pack almost half her weight, sometimes off one shoulder. It drives me nuts. It's a one frigging man crusade.
Tipi Walter
02-27-2010, 08:01
Dee Dee, I don't understand, your pack weighs 6 lbs and your tent weighs 5 1/2 lbs.
You say your clothes are the heaviest thing and your sleeping bag is 3 1/2 lbs.
Then you go on to say that you learned everything on this site.
I find that a little hard to believe.
Chances are, your body can't carry that kind of weight.
Back into the fray. Actually, I'd say the human body can hump quite a bit of weight. Look at NOLS, it's students routinely carry 40% of their body weight. And then there's those Andes backpackers who hump enormous loads. And of course the sherpas in Nepal, etc. I've been carrying heavy packs for the last 30 years and I'm no NFL linebacker, instead I'm a limp-wrist, skinny, weak-kneed, vegetarian ex-hippie. My sleeping bag(WM Puma)weighs in at 3.5lbs and my tent is 8lbs and my pack is also 8lbs. Some hiking days I pull 18 miles, sometimes I do 2 miles. And I have finally found a pack that can haul all my crap w/o sagging and in some comfort.
A Kifaru Longhunter pack weighs 7#, it is designed for a hunter to pack 150# of meat (quartered elk or deer) out of the wilderness. A ULA Catalyst weighs 3#, and is all any trail hiker needs. A 6# pack for a hiker, with today's technology is nuts.
This might be true for weekend backpackers who carry no stove or fuel and very little food. Your sweeping comment does not factor in different hiking styles such as infrequent resupply or wanting to stay out w/o resupply for 15 or 20 days, or a kit for extreme wind or cold. And yes, my summer weight is many lbs lighter than my winter weight.
Excellent point. When you read someone just using a wind shirt and pants as his winter clothing, what he may not be telling you is he ends up stuffing leaves in them to stay warm. Or a guy that just has a poncho listed as his shelter may not say that he sleeps in shelters 99% of the time.
This reminds me of Ryan Jordan's and Roman Dial's Arctic Trek where they went 30 or 40 days w/o resupply and carried so little clothing that they had to wear their foam sleeping pads around their torsos whiled they hiked to stay warm.
Have not read every single post. The title of this thread is gear weight vs safety. I'd just like to add; IMHO heavy packs are not safe.
Heavy packs are not safe--this is a mantra you hear often from the UL crowd, as if repeating it reinforces their chosen style of backpacking, i.e. to go very light. We all go light, and I probably have one of the lightest four season dome tents out there, along with one of the lightest sleeping bags(for its rating)and down parkas made. The thing is, I like to stay out as long as I can and be comfortable doing it. And to have 3 or 4 books to read and burn along with enough white gas(between 32 and 44oz)to boil up tea and in the winter to filter water(boil)as my filter won't be usable.
Appalachian Trail backpackers are a peculiar breed, they can resupply at close intervals, maybe once every 4 days, and so do not need to carry 15 or 20 days worth of food and fuel. Sure, some of them go extremely light, and pride themselves on this. Some of them use the shelters and so they do not have to carry much of a shelter themselves. Many of them get off the trail during January and February as they are unwilling to carry the boots/bags/tents/clothing and pads needed for very cold backpacking.
As soon as winter leaves and Spring arrives, hundreds of backpackers will start out from Springer with very light packs, or at least with very light bags, clothing and pads, and some of them will spend many cold nights before April turns to May and June. It's okay, who hasn't tossed and turned all night in the cold? I sure have, but I don't anymore.
fiddlehead
02-27-2010, 09:33
Ok Tipi Walter, carry the kitchen sink if it makes you feel better.
But telling that woman that she can carry what you carry on her thru is a recipe for a failed thru-hike IMO.
garlic08
02-27-2010, 09:56
...Appalachian Trail backpackers are a peculiar breed...
Tipi, coming from you, this is actually quite funny. And I mean that with true respect and awe for your trips and what you manage to carry.
I think it's wonderful that within a subculture that mainstream people think are a peculiar breed, there are smaller groups that the peculiar people think are peculiar.
no one should Jump into UL backpacking...should be something you work your way to
i remember when i was a boy my pack as 40lbs...as i got older my pack got down to 30lbs
when i got back into backpacking 4 years ago i did my homework
read alot online about this and about that...started with a pack weight of 25lbs...now my base weight is 10lbs
i guess my point is that backpacking can be safe and fun at 10lbs...but it's something you got to work for...not something you just do
I've been putting off posting my mantra, but here goes:
"It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
This is ALWAYS true, whether you're an ultralighter or otherwise.
It's ESPECIALLY relevant if you are a newbie/infrequent/fair weather hiker.
On a long hike you can't pick and choose your weather, water sources, etc.
Be prepared (even if you're not a boy scout).
When you become more aware of your needs (or desires) when it comes to comfort in camp or on the trail you can fine-tune your gear.
Carrying a little more (unless it is truly worthless junk - cotton socks, lead fishing weights, etc.) won't kill you. It will probably make you work harder, and you can always get rid of or change gear on a long hike (thru or otherwise) by mailing it home, giving it away, or buying more effective gear along the way.
Experimentation should always be done near home or car to avoid extreme discomfort or worse.
Getting everything soaking wet and then taking a walk around the neighborhood is a a good preparation for what you may experience on the AT. Then sleep in your back yard in damp clothes in your sleeping bag to see what that's like. It's likely to happen at least once on a long hike.
Tipi Walter
02-27-2010, 11:15
Ok Tipi Walter, carry the kitchen sink if it makes you feel better.
But telling that woman that she can carry what you carry on her thru is a recipe for a failed thru-hike IMO.
You are right because thruhikers are on a schedule to punch out the miles and reach a time-sensitive goal, so they have to count on moving with a steady batch of daily miles completed. And carrying too much weight in the beginning will surely jinx a trip.
Tipi, coming from you, this is actually quite funny. And I mean that with true respect and awe for your trips and what you manage to carry.
I think it's wonderful that within a subculture that mainstream people think are a peculiar breed, there are smaller groups that the peculiar people think are peculiar.
I've always considered AT thruhikers to be a unique bunch of backpackers, mainly due to their near-constant resupplies and zero days in town/hostels/motels. It's just the style of their backpacking and of course supports the current fascination with all things UL. AT backpackers choose to hike the trail in the fashionable style now so popular, but it doesn't have to be this way and can be approached more as a "wilderness trip" with few resupplies, no town trips and zero days taken in their tents and not in motels. Trailside food caches come to mind. One of the reasons it's sometimes hard to read thru their trip reports on Trail Journals is because of their constant interruption of the trip with town visits and overnighters in beds with hot showers.
As an aside, and most people don't think about this, but the longer a backpacker is out w/o "town" or road interruptions(other than crossing one), the better his trip and the better his trail journals. This is my opinion, anyway. Instead of the current drooling over superlight packs, I'd like to see a change of focus and a different approach on walking the Appalachian Trail, and one of town avoidance and very long periods without resupply. I know it won't happen as people are generally lazy and don't want to carry big weights, but they could choose this style just as they have chosen the current resupply-often style.
I'm thinking of Eric Ryback who thurhiked in 1970/71 and would occasionally carry a pack full of 20 days worth of food, and he said he liked the feel of it on his back as it gave him the freedom to stay out longer without town trips.
Stir Fry
02-27-2010, 11:32
I carry the same items if not more now at 20lb had 60lb.
Had a 6 lb pack now 3 lb 5 oz.
Had 5 lb 20*sleeping bag now 2 lb 10oz 20*
Had a 3lb 4 oz stove now 15 oz
These are just some ex. Everything is lighter now, then when I started in 1977. Back then 60 * was normal today is dated. I think I'm just as safe now as I was than.
IMHO heavy packs are not safe.
I have a hard time with the idea that "heavy packs are not safe." They are often uncomfortable or even impossible for that particular hiker to carry. They often wear down the body and decrease the mileage per day that a hiker can travel. But the hiker has the ability to get rid of what they don't need if this is an issue for him or her.
Depending upon the season, conditions, terrain and the number of days I'll be out, my total pack weight at the beginning of a re-supply on a personal trip ranges from 25lbs to 40lbs. I find this to be very comfortable for me. However, I work at a therapeutic wilderness program for juvenile delinquents. At work I carry much heavier gear (some the program requires...like an enormous first aid kit and satellite phone, etc! some I take as personal "comfort gear"...like a Crazy Creek chair). At work, my pack will often weigh 65lbs in the winter (even though we sleep under tarps!). I am a 44 year-old woman, but I prefer that my pack weigh more than the packs that I ask my larger, teen-aged male students to carry, and we give them sturdy, bulky gear that is meant to last and hold up to abuse and off-trail conditions. At work we tend to travel slowly and not cover big miles. Though our packs are often ridiculously heavy, I can't imagine that they are unsafe.
Many people have successfully hiked the trail with heavy packs (UL is a relatively new thing); many have been successful with UL packs, but most hikers are probably somewhere inbetween. The weight of your pack is not the determining factor on whether or not you are "safe" or whether or not you'll be able to finish. I do think the OP has a valid point and should be thanked for bringing the topic up. When we give or take advice here, we should always be aware that one-size doesn't fit all, and everyone is coming with different experience levels and comfort levels.
SGT Rock
02-27-2010, 12:26
You are right because thruhikers are on a schedule to punch out the miles and reach a time-sensitive goal, so they have to count on moving with a steady batch of daily miles completed. And carrying too much weight in the beginning will surely jinx a trip.
True dat.
I've always considered AT thruhikers to be a unique bunch of backpackers, mainly due to their near-constant resupplies and zero days in town/hostels/motels. It's just the style of their backpacking and of course supports the current fascination with all things UL. AT backpackers choose to hike the trail in the fashionable style now so popular, but it doesn't have to be this way and can be approached more as a "wilderness trip" with few resupplies, no town trips and zero days taken in their tents and not in motels. Trailside food caches come to mind. One of the reasons it's sometimes hard to read thru their trip reports on Trail Journals is because of their constant interruption of the trip with town visits and overnighters in beds with hot showers.
Well it would be hard to set up food caches all the way up the trail ahead of time. It is fairly easy to mail stuff to a PO or buy in town. As for staying in town, not everyone does that. Just passing through....
As an aside, and most people don't think about this, but the longer a backpacker is out w/o "town" or road interruptions(other than crossing one), the better his trip and the better his trail journals. This is my opinion, anyway. Instead of the current drooling over superlight packs, I'd like to see a change of focus and a different approach on walking the Appalachian Trail, and one of town avoidance and very long periods without resupply. I know it won't happen as people are generally lazy and don't want to carry big weights, but they could choose this style just as they have chosen the current resupply-often style.
Well here is where I think I would differ. I would say that in these cases the superlight pack would come in very handy. If you were planning to stay in the woods for 10 days straight, then you need to carry a lot more food with you which means more disposable weight. My three season base is about 15.5 pounds, add that to 25 pounds of food I would want for that length of time, a pound for fuel, and a couple of pounds for water - then I'm already in the 40s for pack weight. If I were carrying a Ray Jardaine style pack, I's get back into the 30s.
And I bring that up because the ultralight craze actually started on the west coast where there is a longer period between resupply. Back then, the 25 pound "normal" base with all that food, and more water that hikers had to carry because of the desert brought thru-hiker pack weights into the 60s.
Now I know the human body can carry 60 pounds for extended periods. But I also know it can carry 30 pounds more better.
I'm thinking of Eric Ryback who thurhiked in 1970/71 and would occasionally carry a pack full of 20 days worth of food, and he said he liked the feel of it on his back as it gave him the freedom to stay out longer without town trips.
I believe it. But there are a lot more hikers out there that do it differently. If the trail passes through a town about every 5 days, and you are walking right by a store, then the only reason to not stop and buy food is because you want to be an iconoclast - it has nothing to do with being smart or avoiding town because you are already going to be there anyway when thru-hiking.;)
I would like to point out that "going light" is NOT a new phenomena. George Washington Sears aka Nessmuk who wrote in the late 1800's, "Go light; the lighter the better, so that you have the simplest material for health, comfort and enjoyment." His gear list: "including canoe, extra clothing, blanket-bag, two days' rations, pocket-axe, rod and knapsack, never exceeded 26 pounds."
Tipi Walter
02-27-2010, 13:00
I have a hard time with the idea that "heavy packs are not safe." They are often uncomfortable or even impossible for that particular hiker to carry. They often wear down the body and decrease the mileage per day that a hiker can travel. But the hiker has the ability to get rid of what they don't need if this is an issue for him or her.
Depending upon the season, conditions, terrain and the number of days I'll be out, my total pack weight at the beginning of a re-supply on a personal trip ranges from 25lbs to 40lbs. I find this to be very comfortable for me. However, I work at a therapeutic wilderness program for juvenile delinquents. At work I carry much heavier gear (some the program requires...like an enormous first aid kit and satellite phone, etc! some I take as personal "comfort gear"...like a Crazy Creek chair). At work, my pack will often weigh 65lbs in the winter (even though we sleep under tarps!). I am a 44 year-old woman, but I prefer that my pack weigh more than the packs that I ask my larger, teen-aged male students to carry, and we give them sturdy, bulky gear that is meant to last and hold up to abuse and off-trail conditions. At work we tend to travel slowly and not cover big miles. Though our packs are often ridiculously heavy, I can't imagine that they are unsafe.
Many people have successfully hiked the trail with heavy packs (UL is a relatively new thing); many have been successful with UL packs, but most hikers are probably somewhere inbetween. The weight of your pack is not the determining factor on whether or not you are "safe" or whether or not you'll be able to finish. I do think the OP has a valid point and should be thanked for bringing the topic up. When we give or take advice here, we should always be aware that one-size doesn't fit all, and everyone is coming with different experience levels and comfort levels.
NotYet(I like your name, it's a good line in the movie Gladiator)--you may be interested in the following thread on BPL:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=7264
You probably won't be able access the article but the following posts are pretty relevant.
SGT Rock
02-27-2010, 13:11
I would like to point out that "going light" is NOT a new phenomena. George Washington Sears aka Nessmuk who wrote in the late 1800's, "Go light; the lighter the better, so that you have the simplest material for health, comfort and enjoyment." His gear list: "including canoe, extra clothing, blanket-bag, two days' rations, pocket-axe, rod and knapsack, never exceeded 26 pounds."
Sure, but the latest Go-light movement was started by Jardaine. His ideas weren't new, but he is considered the latest guru of the religion. :sun
Thanks for the links Tipi Walter...interesting stuff. Fortunately, our kids don't carry nearly as much as they carry on a NOLS course...my pack weighs waaaay more than my students, but when they manage to get soaked out, their packs do get up there! Our program's main issues with weight are budget (we are a state-run program and the state is broke!) and durability (our students are not gentle with their gear; so it must be built to last!).
p.s. One reason I want my pack to weigh more than theirs is because they often whine and want to switch packs with me...I readily agree and let them know I'll gladly switch back at any time--which usually happens very soon. The whining usually stops because if some old lady can do it, so can they!!!
Tipi Walter
02-27-2010, 13:21
I would like to point out that "going light" is NOT a new phenomena. George Washington Sears aka Nessmuk who wrote in the late 1800's, "Go light; the lighter the better, so that you have the simplest material for health, comfort and enjoyment." His gear list: "including canoe, extra clothing, blanket-bag, two days' rations, pocket-axe, rod and knapsack, never exceeded 26 pounds."
I don't know if you could consider old Nessmuk a backpacker, but what do I know? Here's a short blurb from a Nessmuck website.(see below). I haven't read any of his books in a long time, and I'm getting him mixed up with the other guy who wrote a long thing on camping . . . SOUTHERN HIGHLANDERS?? Uh, Camping And Woodcraft? What's his name? KEPHART!!
"Although Nessmuk seems to have spent few nights actually under canvas, and more time around the "camps" (resort hotels) than the fishing holes, and when available he used steam boat decks rather than paddle, he did through his writings greatly popularize and demonstrate that it was possible to paddle your own canoe through the wilderness without destroying the environment or a working man's savings."
From:
http://robroy.dyndns.info/books/gws/SEARS.HTM
I'd say the biggest weirdness of your(russb)quote is his carrying just 2 days of food on his canoe trips. Is that all?
Tipi,
From reading Nessmuk's writings, I was always under the impression that most of his nourishment came from fishing. You are right about him probably not considered a backpacker since his general mode of travel was to paddle. Though to accomplish this, carrying his gear over trail from pond to pond would have been necessary. I suppose i would use the term "outdoorsman" since he wasn't strictly backpacking. Anyway, his main point in his writings was not what gear you take, but what knowledge you have which is important. Sounds eerily similar to some of the more well known posters at WB.
Sgt. , You are right, Jardine is probably the one who should be credited with the most recent popularization of going light.
Tipi Walter
02-27-2010, 13:50
Thanks for the links Tipi Walter...interesting stuff. Fortunately, our kids don't carry nearly as much as they carry on a NOLS course...my pack weighs waaaay more than my students, but when they manage to get soaked out, their packs do get up there! Our program's main issues with weight are budget (we are a state-run program and the state is broke!) and durability (our students are not gentle with their gear; so it must be built to last!).
p.s. One reason I want my pack to weigh more than theirs is because they often whine and want to switch packs with me...I readily agree and let them know I'll gladly switch back at any time--which usually happens very soon. The whining usually stops because if some old lady can do it, so can they!!!
As I already told Sgt Rock, there's a big group of Michigan kids coming down into the Slickrock/Citico wilderness for a 10 day backpacking trip on spring break in March which would probably pique your interest. There's about 70 or 80 or them and they break into groups of 9 or 10 with three leaders each. They use only large Walmart type tarps strung with climbing robe and carry fairly enormous packs. It's good to see, it's real good to see, kids pulling 10 days out in the woods. They're a happy bunch.
I read that old book by Napoleon Comeau.
They packed very light while traveling in winter. Not UL, but light.
When trapping they carried alot of traps in, and alot of pelts out.
The rest of their gear had to be very light.
Of course they depended on fires to stay warm at night.
They travelled from dawn to dusk, with now meals through the day.
There was one account where they forgot their matches. Interesting night in the snow.
It is a good read. There is a copy on line someplace. Definetly worth a read.
Bingo:
http://www.archive.org/stream/lifeandsportonn00comegoog/lifeandsportonn00comegoog_djvu.txt
As I already told Sgt Rock, there's a big group of Michigan kids coming down into the Slickrock/Citico wilderness for a 10 day backpacking trip on spring break in March which would probably pique your interest. There's about 70 or 80 or them and they break into groups of 9 or 10 with three leaders each. They use only large Walmart type tarps strung with climbing robe and carry fairly enormous packs. It's good to see, it's real good to see, kids pulling 10 days out in the woods. They're a happy bunch.That is very reassuring. Nice to see the human spirit live and kicking.
Doesn't really matter whether we go light or heavy, as long as we get it.
The more time we spend out there, the more chance we have to get it.
Mountain Wildman
02-27-2010, 16:55
If you guys are interested, I finally posted my gear list.
It's under: Not responsible for heart attacks.
Check it out, let me know what you think.
I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it.
Snowleopard
02-27-2010, 17:32
By the time Nessmuk became well known as an outdoor writing he was pretty sick with tuberculosis and asthma. I think he did some long trips across Michigan when younger.
Kephart's base weight was 18 lb. That was with a 7'x9' tarp that weighed several pounds. With modern materials it could be reduced a good bit. Very light equipment was available (silk tents, etc.), but he regarded them as too delicate for use in the wilderness. TipiWalter's approach reminds me of Kephart's -- more pleasure in being in the wilderness in the Smokies than in just covering lots of miles.
Neither Nessmuk nor Kephart were large men; I seem to recall Nessmuk was 110lb.
--Walter
Wolf - 23000
02-27-2010, 19:31
Sure, but the latest Go-light movement was started by Jardaine. His ideas weren't new, but he is considered the latest guru of the religion. :sun
SGT Rock,
Jardine should be right up there with Al Gore and the invention of the internet. His ideas truly gave new meaning to, " do as I say, don't do as I do". His 17 pound pack in his first book, I could see helping someone who didn't have either a Kmart or Wal-Mart around them (minis the sleeping gear), others of us were carrying more weight because of his book than without it.
I found out the hard way after carrying an extra 8 pounds of water for nothing thanks to his book.
Wolf
"It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
Why, then, do hikers carry heavy loads? Generally, I imagine it is for these reasons:
They are trying to be prepared for any and all unforeseen occurrences, falsely imagining that great quantities of equipment will provide greater margins of safety.
This rationale generally stems from a lack of knowledge regarding human ability, adaptability and the environment. Heavy-duty, superfluous gear can actually subtract from the hikers' safety.
He goes on to say that he and Jenny carried 22lbs of gear each. This is not all that light compared to what a lot of people do nowadays.
He also goes on for 375 pages or so describing how the lightweight gear actually works. I think a lot of times the extra gear people carry is to shield themselves from adversity. Gear can possibly help, but being flexible, inventive, resourceful and having a positive attitude will take you further. That is the genius of Ray Jardine's methods and it's all explained in excruciating detail in his books.
If you really want to learn about this, I highly recommend reading his books. You might find them in the library. Try what he recommends a little at a time. You don't have to do everything or even anything he says, but if it leads you to start thinking more innovatively and creatively then you will have gained a huge margin of safety over those who think as long as you have a mountain of crap on your back you'll be prepared for anything.
I mean, look at TiPi. He carries a mountain on his back, but he also thinks creatively and innovatively and that is how he stays safe out there. His gear is a tool and it's heavy for a reason, not because he's scared.
And for DeeDee who bought the 6lb pack. You can probably shave a little weight off the pack. There are likely to be a lot of excess straps dangling from the pack. You can cut off the excess (leave a little excess so you can make adjustments.) It's surprising how much that webbing weighs.
You might be able to remove the top compartment and save a pound.
If you're willing to go further, you could adjust some of the straps to your liking and then sew them in place and remove the buckles. Not really recommended if you want to sell the pack someday.
Wolf - 23000
02-27-2010, 22:41
sbhiker,
22 pounds wasn't that light back then either. I remember prior to leaving for the PCT, trying to figure out why would a man/woman need to carry so much when the first resupply point was in 2 days. Being new to the desert the only thing I could figure out was why would a guy preach lightweight be carrying a such a heavy load himself. The only thing I could figure was he needed a lot of water. I end up carrying an extra 8 pounds of water for nothing.
Wolf
So here I am at the Rockies Ruck. Queuing up a slideshow I plan on doing.
Thousands and thousands and miles of backpacking among us.
...and not one gear discussion.
People who have limited outdoor experience in a narrow environment (Southern Appalachians perhaps?) discuss gear ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
Get outdoors...and outside a narrow area and way of hiking.
ps. at the 2008 ADZPCTKO Eric Ryback said he wished he had modern gear for his hike. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)
pps. No. Jardine did not invent lightweight backpacking (who the hell did? who the hell cares?), but he did popularize the idea. Too many sour grapes to say otherwise.
Wolf - 23000
02-28-2010, 03:43
Mags,
Eric Ryback also hiked the PCT in 1970, some 40 years ago. I'm sure he would want to use the modern gear. There is a lot of newer gear that came out in the last 40 years.
Personal I'm glad we haven't had any gear discussion. Gear is always something that is a personal choice. It goes hand and hand with the level of experience of the hiker which boils down to how safe a hiker is vs his/her gear weight.
As for Jardine, most hikers here didn't hike back then. Some of the old time hikers did but most did not or did so with limited experience. Of the hikers who did hike back then, even his fans will admit he wasn't the lightest weight hiker out there. I think we all agree, some of his advise was way off the deep end. To some he help save a couple of pounds; while others he actually cause to carry more weight. It a trade off. Someone who save some hikers a few pounds while causing others to carry more weight is not enough to give him credit for popularize the idea.
Wolf
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 08:16
Mags,
Personal I'm glad we haven't had any gear discussion. Gear is always something that is a personal choice. It goes hand and hand with the level of experience of the hiker which boils down to how safe a hiker is vs his/her gear weight.
Wolf
The more I hike, the more I agree with this. Gear choices can be so personal that comparing one list to another is like comparing the 85 Bears to the 69 Jets to figure out which team was better. It really doesn't matter. It's nice to look at other gear and see what you might want to adopt and might not want to even try, but in the end there is more to backpacking than copying a gear list.
Tipi Walter
02-28-2010, 09:05
Here are a few relevant quotes from Eric Ryback on his 1969 AT Thruhike:
** "Later, when I was arranging my equipment and food, people came up and questioned me about my trip. This was the first real indication I had that I was doing something unusual; they were amazed that I was able to maintain myself in the mountains for over 2 and 1/2 weeks with just what was in my pack, plus water from mountain streams." RYBACK
** "Things in the main compartment(of the pack)got lost--small items, for example. The need for a small item would force me to remove 18 to 20 days' food supply to find it." RYBACK
** "Looking at that food was one of my greatest pleasures on the whole trip. It was the last package I would pick up before I finished my trek. I wondered how I would make all of the food fit into the pack. It was for 20 days, the largest supply I had picked up. With the experience of 1,600 miles behind me, the heavier the pack, the more secure I felt. I knew I could go into the woods and stay for as long as the food lasted before coming back to civilization again." ALL QUOTE ERIC RYBACK From "The Last Step" in "Hiking The Appalachian Trail, Vol Two, edited by James R. Hare.
The last quote is the one I find most interesting and can relate to. While "the heavier the pack, the more secure I felt" is not something that should be emulated by everyone, and a 100 pound pack does not equate to perfect security, still I can understand his meaning and how such a weight means staying out in the woods for a longer time before returning to a town.
Other than a restaurant meal in Fontana and a house overnighter with meals in Rabun County, Georgia, Ryback humped from Damascus all the way to Springer on his one load of food. I'd like to see a modern-day thruhiker do the same today, just to see if he can.
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 09:08
Other than a restaurant meal in Fontana and a house overnighter with meals in Rabun County, Georgia, Ryback humped from Damascus all the way to Springer on his one load of food. I'd like to see a modern-day thruhiker do the same today, just to see if he can.
Couponus (sp?) tried that a year or two ago. Decided it was pretty dumb.
colonel lingus
02-28-2010, 11:21
It's like this for me -- I started heavy, cause thats the way it was done with the folks I learned from. I'm not talking axes and gourmet cooksets, but heavy tents and packs and bags built for durability with enough fuel and extra food to ride out a storm. That kind of heavy, not the foolish kind of heavy that includes a plastic mallet for tent stakes. (pulking not included). Then I got the Ray Jardine injection and got lighter and lighter until I did not have enough. (like floorless tarps in winter) (go to hell Doctor Ryan Jordan). The Oregon PCT section showed me the error in my ways. (2003 trail journal) But it was all good. I knew the pain and pleasure of heavy and light. That knowledge allowed me to strike a balance that I am happy and comfortable with. You must learn from your sufferings is my thought on the matter. Take too much and suffer on the trail, take too little and suffer in camp. Strike a balance between weight and comfort and your sufferings will equalize.
"It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
As opposed to "It's better to have it and not want it that to want it and not have it." I carrry a few "want it but don't need it" items but the list gets smaller the longer I hike.
A lot of this discussion is because people are mixing up wants and needs.
No one has suggested you shouldn't take equipment you need.
Wolf - 23000
02-28-2010, 14:12
Here are a few relevant quotes from Eric Ryback on his 1969 AT Thruhike:
** "Later, when I was arranging my equipment and food, people came up and questioned me about my trip. This was the first real indication I had that I was doing something unusual; they were amazed that I was able to maintain myself in the mountains for over 2 and 1/2 weeks with just what was in my pack, plus water from mountain streams." RYBACK
** "Things in the main compartment(of the pack)got lost--small items, for example. The need for a small item would force me to remove 18 to 20 days' food supply to find it." RYBACK
** "Looking at that food was one of my greatest pleasures on the whole trip. It was the last package I would pick up before I finished my trek. I wondered how I would make all of the food fit into the pack. It was for 20 days, the largest supply I had picked up. With the experience of 1,600 miles behind me, the heavier the pack, the more secure I felt. I knew I could go into the woods and stay for as long as the food lasted before coming back to civilization again." ALL QUOTE ERIC RYBACK From "The Last Step" in "Hiking The Appalachian Trail, Vol Two, edited by James R. Hare.
The last quote is the one I find most interesting and can relate to. While "the heavier the pack, the more secure I felt" is not something that should be emulated by everyone, and a 100 pound pack does not equate to perfect security, still I can understand his meaning and how such a weight means staying out in the woods for a longer time before returning to a town.
Other than a restaurant meal in Fontana and a house overnighter with meals in Rabun County, Georgia, Ryback humped from Damascus all the way to Springer on his one load of food. I'd like to see a modern-day thruhiker do the same today, just to see if he can.
Tipi Walter,
I wouldn't take to much of what Eric Ryback said to serious. He wrote a book on this "thru-hike" adventures that end up going to court when several people said he made up his adventures. Eric Ryback tried suing them but then dropped the his case after he learn several people who gave him several long rides showed up.
As for a modern-day thru-hiker doing Damascus to Springer, Mt. I'm sure it been done but why? If someone wants to test their manhood and see how much they can carry, I suggest join the Army.
Wolf
gear is way lighter and safer.my zero degree down quilt wieghs 24oz
my heviest pack is 20 oz.my 11x10 tarp 19 oz,this is just a few :cool:neo
Wolf - 23000
02-28-2010, 16:01
gear is way lighter and safer.my zero degree down quilt wieghs 24oz
my heviest pack is 20 oz.my 11x10 tarp 19 oz,this is just a few :cool:neo
Neo,
I'm going to disagree with you that gear is safer. Lighter yes but safer no. You can have the best gear in the world or the cheapest, it all boils down to who is using it and how well they know their equipment. A hiker can have a 900-fill goose down sleeping bag, state of the art but it won't do him any good if it gets wet.
Wolf
Tipi Walter
02-28-2010, 17:01
Tipi Walter,
I wouldn't take to much of what Eric Ryback said to serious. He wrote a book on this "thru-hike" adventures that end up going to court when several people said he made up his adventures. Eric Ryback tried suing them but then dropped the his case after he learn several people who gave him several long rides showed up.
As for a modern-day thru-hiker doing Damascus to Springer, Mt. I'm sure it been done but why? If someone wants to test their manhood and see how much they can carry, I suggest join the Army.
Wolf
My point is not about testosterone posturing, it's about staying out in the woods longer and in towns less. Would you say the same "test their manhood" thing to ULers who punch out 30 mile days?
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 17:09
My point is not about testosterone posturing, it's about staying out in the woods longer and in towns less. Would you say the same "test their manhood" thing to ULers who punch out 30 mile days?
I would say on the whole, that doing a 30 mile day probably isn't as hard as trying to carry 4 weeks of food from springer to Damascus and doing it without stopping.
And doing a 30 probably makes more sense if you are traveling light. You wouldn't even have to go fast. But to carry 4 weeks of food you would have to WANT to pass by stores for the opportunity to carry extra weight. You wouldn't actually stay in the woods any longer by carrying a ton of food on your back from the start, you will still walk through the same civilized places the other hikers go.
You keep saying it is to stay in the woods longer, but on a thru-hike, since you pass right by re-supply points, the only reason you would do this is you had some oddball idea to prove. Sort of like not drinking water for a week to see if you started by drinking enough before you started your hike. Cuponus (sp?) was trying to prove an oddball idea and realize quickly how stupid it was for a trail like the AT.
To STAY out longer, one would more likely do something like you do. Go camp out in the wilderness and do a "walk-about" with as much food as you can start with to avoid going out of the wilderness for another re-supply. Trying argue some into walk 400 miles without re-supply on the AT is like a basketball player getting onto a soccer guy for the low scores in his game compared to Basketball. They are different sports all together.
Tipi Walter
02-28-2010, 17:29
I just don't remember the AT going thru that many grocery stores without some kind of hitch or shuttle. Accordng to Tarlin, the only decent food selection on the trail without hitching or yellow blazing(between Springer and Davenport Gap) is at Neels Gap at the Walasi Yi center. After that there's the Hiawasse hitch and then the Franklin hitch and then the NOC which seems to not have a decent food supply. Fontana? The last time I was there the food supply was sketchy(and on a two mile roadwalk). And who wants to go to Gatlinburg and out of the Park?
So, does the AT pass right by the resupply points? Not really.
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 17:37
Goes right through (literally through) Neels gap. Goes right past NOC. Goes right through the Fontana Dam area. Goes right past Curtis's place. Goes right through Hot Springs. It's practically in Uncle Johnny's Front yard. Goes right past Dennis Cove. Goes right through Damascus. That is a lot of civilization you will pass right through with everyone else on the trail. You won't avoid it by starting with 56 pounds of food.
Plenty of places where you don't go that far to get something or pass right by something. Do you really believe that a smart person would hike with 4 weeks food from Springer when 2.5 to 3 days away he will pass right thru a store. That is when Cuponos got it.
Someone doing that is doing it because they have something to prove. Someone hiking 30 miles in one day may just be hiking in a rain storm in the summer. Some of my longest days were when it was raining, and the only reason I stopped at the end of the day was I ran out of daylight.
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 17:46
And you know, you keep bring this up about re-supply. But the whole thread was about gear weight = safety. Other than a possible argument about needing a bigger pack, the thought that you somehow need more gear to stay in the woods longer so you can avoid town seems sort of off the point of the idea.
If you hike in winter you probably are going to want heavier gear. If you are going to do like you do and spend a lot of time enjoying campsites and getting away from people you will probably want more luxuries and bomb proof gear. But if you are solo hiking a contiguous trail that goes through re-supply points about once a week and more hikers than you can hit with a dead cat, and you do it in the Spring/summer, you probably don't need a 4 person Hiderberg tent, 2 pound thermarest, and 0F down bag - no matter how much you want to get away from it all.
PS for Tipi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz90jTFT6rc
Hope to see you out there next weekend man.
Tipi Walter
02-28-2010, 19:48
And you know, you keep bring this up about re-supply. But the whole thread was about gear weight = safety. Other than a possible argument about needing a bigger pack, the thought that you somehow need more gear to stay in the woods longer so you can avoid town seems sort of off the point of the idea.
If you hike in winter you probably are going to want heavier gear. If you are going to do like you do and spend a lot of time enjoying campsites and getting away from people you will probably want more luxuries and bomb proof gear. But if you are solo hiking a contiguous trail that goes through re-supply points about once a week and more hikers than you can hit with a dead cat, and you do it in the Spring/summer, you probably don't need a 4 person Hiderberg tent, 2 pound thermarest, and 0F down bag - no matter how much you want to get away from it all.
PS for Tipi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz90jTFT6rc
Hope to see you out there next weekend man.
Thanks Rock for the Beatles. I forgot about that little song. It's a drag having dial-up but I watched the whole thing. Thanks for the thought.
You're wrong about the thermarest, it's 3.10lbs, not 2. :rolleyes:
I'll be out there god willing and the creeks don't rise.
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 19:57
Thanks Rock for the Beatles. I forgot about that little song. It's a drag having dial-up but I watched the whole thing. Thanks for the thought.
You're wrong about the thermarest, it's 3.10lbs, not 2. :rolleyes:
I'll be out there god willing and the creeks don't rise.
Which way you coming in? If it is possible, could you come down from Farr Gap? I'd like to work that section, but don't want to walk all the way up if I don't need to. If you come that way you can let me know if there are any blow downs that need servicing.
If it is too much trouble then don't worry about it.:sun
Tipi Walter
02-28-2010, 20:04
I am planning on the Stiffknee route as it's my favorite anyway, just gotta get to it from Flats Mountain. I'll give you a full report on the blowdowns. Everywhere else is pretty blowed out, let's hope the Stiffknee is kind to me.
SGT Rock
02-28-2010, 20:05
I am planning on the Stiffknee route as it's my favorite anyway, just gotta get to it from Flats Mountain. I'll give you a full report on the blowdowns. Everywhere else is pretty blowed out, let's hope the Stiffknee is kind to me.
I love that section. If it weren't so darn hard for me to do it, I would adopt it too. But since I've got some time I'll try and help that section out. If you have your digital camera, get me some pics of the blow downs so I know what I am hitting before I get there.
What sort of treats should I bring your partner?
Tipi Walter
02-28-2010, 20:14
He likes filet mignon but will settle for milk bones.
So now that high maintenance client of yours needs two sherpas.
Hope he pays well.
Thousands and thousands and miles of backpacking among us.
...and not one gear discussion.
People who have limited outdoor experience in a narrow environment (Southern Appalachians perhaps?) discuss gear ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
Get outdoors...and outside a narrow area and way of hiking.
To be fair, this topic hasn't exactly been about gear. I mean, boring gear discussions like "what brand of xyz should I get" gear talk.
I remember when I was hiking near Mt. Hood and this guy was getting set to do a section from Barlow Pass to Cascade Locks. He had just bought all this ultralight gear and he was so excited to meet a hiker with gear like his. He wanted to talk gear talk with me. What brand of pack do you have? How much does it weigh? That kind of thing. I just wanted to get the heck away from him. I couldn't care less what brand of pack or tent I had and I cared even less what kind he had. The only thing I wanted to talk about was what's for lunch at the Timberline Lodge!
However, when I met other hikers with towering loads and they asked me how I could be out there with so little, I was happy to discuss it with them. Being able to hike far with a light load enabled me to experience the PCT. When people learn backpacking doesn't have to be painful and slow, they realize maybe they could also do a thru-hike. It doesn't have to be a superhuman endeavor. It opens up their world.
Wolf - 23000
03-01-2010, 03:22
My point is not about testosterone posturing, it's about staying out in the woods longer and in towns less. Would you say the same "test their manhood" thing to ULers who punch out 30 mile days?
Tipi Walter,
As SGT Rock pointed out there are several places you can pick up supplies right on the trail between Damascus to Springer, Mt.
As for "staying out in the woods longer and in town less" that is something I would agree with you on. There are a few hikers that spend more time on the trail and little time in town but they are getting fewer and fewer.
Wolf
Wolf - 23000
03-01-2010, 03:33
To be fair, this topic hasn't exactly been about gear. I mean, boring gear discussions like "what brand of xyz should I get" gear talk.
I remember when I was hiking near Mt. Hood and this guy was getting set to do a section from Barlow Pass to Cascade Locks. He had just bought all this ultralight gear and he was so excited to meet a hiker with gear like his. He wanted to talk gear talk with me. What brand of pack do you have? How much does it weigh? That kind of thing. I just wanted to get the heck away from him. I couldn't care less what brand of pack or tent I had and I cared even less what kind he had. The only thing I wanted to talk about was what's for lunch at the Timberline Lodge!
However, when I met other hikers with towering loads and they asked me how I could be out there with so little, I was happy to discuss it with them. Being able to hike far with a light load enabled me to experience the PCT. When people learn backpacking doesn't have to be painful and slow, they realize maybe they could also do a thru-hike. It doesn't have to be a superhuman endeavor. It opens up their world.
sbhiker,
I know how you feel. I've been bored to death for years with hikers asking questions on gear, brand pack, home made. I don't mind helping someone out but sometimes some hikers were pretty annoying, some went as far to want me to drop everything I was doing and unpack my pack right on the trail. If you ask me, there are to many gear heads out there.
Wolf
Nevermind
03-01-2010, 07:10
Tipi Walter,
As SGT Rock pointed out there are several places you can pick up supplies right on the trail between Damascus to Springer, Mt.
As for "staying out in the woods longer and in town less" that is something I would agree with you on. There are a few hikers that spend more time on the trail and little time in town but they are getting fewer and fewer.
Wolf
Not a gear question (I think), just a personal philosophy question:
Is it better to have a heavier pack that would allow you to comfortably carry more weight but move slower, or a lighter one that would let you move faster but require you to resupply more often? And by "is it better" I'm asking about opinion/preference. No right or wrong answers.
For example, assuming the same base weight otherwise, I could take a big 6 pound pack that would allow me to comfortably carry 10 days of food between resupply points (though moving slower). Or, I could take a 2 pound pack that would comfortably carry 6 days of food, and I could move faster, but would have to get off the trail more often to resupply.
Enjoy hiking by carrying less weight? Or enjoy hiking by taking fewer trips off the trail?
Caution: The numbers I chose are arbitrary and not the intended point of discussion.
I think that the frequency of resupply can also be attributed (in part) to each person's basic personality "type".
Some people tend to gain strength and renewal from being around other people. Thus, being at a store, and being around other people, would be something that they would look forward to. It would be refreshing for them. Such people probably enjoy (and actually look forward to) the "social aspects" of the AT. It "recharges their batteries".
For other individuals, being around other people tends to be somewhat "draining". They don't necessarily dislike being around other people. However, they don't always look forward to it either. They actually feel more "refreshed" from solo activities than from group activities. They prefer their social encounters to come in more limited (and less frequent) doses. They prefer the "solitude" of hiking to the more "social aspects" of hiking.
Studies have shown that such preferences tend to be "hard-wired" into us--from infancy (or even earlier). Thus, I would guess that such "core" preferences would also play a role in the frequency of our resupply. Some people feel refreshed after stopping at a store--other people don't.
When hiking, if there were unstaffed food caches and unstaffed hot showers located at various locations "in the woods"--I would personally not see much need to EVER stop in a town or to be around other people.
HERMITS UNITE!
garlic08
03-01-2010, 13:02
I think that the frequency of resupply can also be attributed (in part) to each person's basic personality "type".
Some people tend to gain strength and renewal from being around other people...For other individuals, being around other people tends to be somewhat "draining".
Excellent point. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense.
Another, more minor, affect on hiking style may be an interest in sociology. I also enjoy getting a off trail to resupply in order to walk into and around a town, to get an idea of how people live--what the farms look like, what kind of interesting junk is in peoples' yards, what kind of characters hang out at the diner or the hardware store, etc. Hitching a ride, you can really meet some interesting people. One thing I enjoyed about the AT was seeing the social change from South to North, maybe because I've never lived in the East.
Wolf - 23000
03-01-2010, 23:37
Not a gear question (I think), just a personal philosophy question:
Is it better to have a heavier pack that would allow you to comfortably carry more weight but move slower, or a lighter one that would let you move faster but require you to resupply more often? And by "is it better" I'm asking about opinion/preference. No right or wrong answers.
For example, assuming the same base weight otherwise, I could take a big 6 pound pack that would allow me to comfortably carry 10 days of food between resupply points (though moving slower). Or, I could take a 2 pound pack that would comfortably carry 6 days of food, and I could move faster, but would have to get off the trail more often to resupply.
Enjoy hiking by carrying less weight? Or enjoy hiking by taking fewer trips off the trail?
Caution: The numbers I chose are arbitrary and not the intended point of discussion.
Nevermind,
In terms of weight and miles, it really all depends on you and what you are after while hiking. You can hike the AT with a 10 pound pack or a 50 pound pack and resupply every 5 days and still covering the same distance. The different is with a 10 pound pack, you are not going to notice the miles the same compare to carrying an extra 40 pound on your back - making a lighter weight hiker more likely to travel farther.
Many hikers believe that if you hike lightweight you have to resupply more often. Well, the more miles you travel per/day gives you more options to resupply but sometimes those resupply really can be more annoying than they are worth. I know some hikers will only carry 2 - 3 days of food before resupply point then go several miles off the trail to resupply. Personal I try to get off the trail as little as possible. Sense food is the heaviest item I carry I normal will only travel with the most 5 days of food. On the AT there really is no need to carry more.
Wolf
OnThePath
03-02-2010, 02:02
Of course I agree with you, but that's what they keep selling people. It's even harder to find a light pack in children's sizes. Don't even get me started on boy scouts. There's a perfect opportunity for them to develop and make available a line of packs suitable for children and teenagers. They fail miserably. Why? If they don't get it right, what the heck are they doing? They are supposed to be the experts. School packs is another. Too heavy even before the books go in. Have you seen school yards lately. That can't be good.
I am new to hiking and bought a osprey aether 70 it wieghs 5 lbs 3 ozs. would this be something i should think about returning for a lighter pack?
I am new to hiking and bought a osprey aether 70 it wieghs 5 lbs 3 ozs. would this be something i should think about returning for a lighter pack?
In my opinion, yes! (Though some would disagree)
Look at this pack instead (ULA Catalyst):
http://www.ula-equipment.com/catalyst.asp
Just 2 lbs 15 oz. and will probably do the trick for many hikers.
(Here is the Osprey Aether for comparison:
http://www.ospreypacks.com/detail.php?productID=186&colorCode=673&tab=description )
The Osprey Aether is a nice pack and perhaps has some features that the ULA Catalyst doesn't--but the packs are comparable in many ways--including price and approximate size.
Catalyst weighs over 2 lbs less. That is a big thing for me.
Some would say the Aether has a better load bearing suspension. It also has more compartments and more pockets and more openings to access your gear. It also comes with a detachable "fanny pack"/top cover. However, you pay for all of that that in the added weight.
For me, the savings in weight is more important than having the added features. (Some people would decide just the opposite).
Wolf - 23000
03-02-2010, 03:08
I am new to hiking and bought a osprey aether 70 it wieghs 5 lbs 3 ozs. would this be something i should think about returning for a lighter pack?
Are you happy with it? In general the heavier packs can handle heavier loads better. How much weight do you want to carry? You can always travel lighter but lightweight hiking is not for everyone. If you get a lighter pack, will you be carrying a light load to match it? The only person who can really say if you should return the pack for a lighter pack is you.
Wolf
Graywolf
03-02-2010, 03:58
I really enjoyed reading this topic..One reason I signed on here..Lots of view points and all very informative..
The best thing that happened to me last year on the section hike was the battle torn pack finally giving up its ghost..It took that incident to finally graduate to internal, lightweight packs..But I do still look at ones that I can carry more food with as I like to be out more than in town..But the fact that I finally went lighter helped..
One statement here I seen was the hiking style: Hike slower starting out and dont rush it, especially at the beginning..I believe this statment heartedly..I enjoy taking my time anyway, as I like to look around and smell the roses.."Live the Experiance" is what I say..
One item I still have trouble is with the foot wear..I still wear boots, but light weight ones.. I have no problem with trail runners or tennis show style shoes, but after an accident in the Davis Mountains in Texas 15 years ago, my left ankle has a tendacy to want to "buckle"..So I use the boots as an extra measure of precaution..I say this for one point: Listen to your own body and its needs..Weigh out the options you have when choosing gear and pick the ones that correspond to your bodies needs, not the needs of someone else..
And for the main point: Choose gear that is going to allow you to enjoy being out in the wilderness and experiancing the trip..
Graywolf
Are you happy with it? In general the heavier packs can handle heavier loads better. How much weight do you want to carry? You can always travel lighter but lightweight hiking is not for everyone. If you get a lighter pack, will you be carrying a light load to match it? The only person who can really say if you should return the pack for a lighter pack is you.
Wolf
You are very correct on one important factor--the difference in carrying capacity between the two packs.
I failed to mention that the Osprey Aether can apparently carry up to 60-70 lbs at the upper end of it's range. The ULA Catalyst has a recommended load limit of 40 lbs or less.
For me, I can't envision carrying over 40 lbs anymore (particularly for the AT and similar trails). Parts of the PCT and other trails could be a different story--with longer distances between resupply points and water sources.
On a long hike I'm pretty much limited by my stomach. I carried a quite large pack but it was mostly just a big bag of food. After 4 days it would be pretty much empty and the only thing on my mind was what I was going to eat at the next town. For me on the PCT, going light with my gear was how I could carry enough food so I could run to the next big meal in town. I guess that's sort of sad, but it's how it was for me.
I also liked visiting each town and wondering if I could live there someday and be a trail angel in my old age.
Wolf - 23000
03-03-2010, 00:06
You are very correct on one important factor--the difference in carrying capacity between the two packs.
I failed to mention that the Osprey Aether can apparently carry up to 60-70 lbs at the upper end of it's range. The ULA Catalyst has a recommended load limit of 40 lbs or less.
For me, I can't envision carrying over 40 lbs anymore (particularly for the AT and similar trails). Parts of the PCT and other trails could be a different story--with longer distances between resupply points and water sources.
Prain4u,
Personally I would not carry even close to 40 pounds on either the AT or PCT. I generally keep my pack extremely lightweight, while others may not mind carrying 40 pounds on their back and don't think anything of it. Normal someone carrying 40 pounds will spend more time at camp than a lighter weight hiker. In the end, either way is a good way of doing the trail. It just depends on how someone wants to do the trail.
Wolf
Prain4u,
Personally I would not carry even close to 40 pounds on either the AT or PCT. I generally keep my pack extremely lightweight, while others may not mind carrying 40 pounds on their back and don't think anything of it. Normal someone carrying 40 pounds will spend more time at camp than a lighter weight hiker. In the end, either way is a good way of doing the trail. It just depends on how someone wants to do the trail.
Wolf
I agree. I made the 40 lb comment only because it is my understanding that there are SOME drier sections of the PCT that require hikers to carry a "substantial" amount of water (Some writers suggest up to 2 gallons --or 8 liters--and water weighs about 2.25 lbs per liter).
This summer, I did a 10 day hike on Isle Royale National Park. On that trip, my pack (at its heaviest) was 40 lbs. That was unusually heavy...but some unique situations pushed me to the heavier weight.
Resupply was "iffy" (especially late in the hiking season and I also have special dietary needs). So, I carried 11 days worth of food. The National Park Service recommends using BOTH water filtration and chemical water purification treatment. The low temps could get into the upper 20s or low 30s--so my clothes and sleep system were slightly heavy. Not all campsites are appropriate for hammock hanging--so I had to go a bit heavier with my shelter needs (if I also wanted protection from insects). I was also carrying some extra equipment that I was experimenting with. EVEN with all of that, my pack hit just 40 lbs on the heaviest day (with 11 days of food and 2 liters of water).
It was my first time on Isle Royale--so I listened to the (non-lightweight) advice of previous hikers. In the end, I had roughly 6 pounds of stuff that I did not use--or barely used. Thus, on a second trip, I could easily do a sub-30 lb pack for 10 days on Isle Royale--with no resupply. If I mailed my food resupply to the island--I could probably get away with a 20-25 lb. pack.