PDA

View Full Version : Just can't go there



Bear Cables
05-14-2010, 14:55
Okay, I've tried to consider ulta light weight or even light weight hiking but just can't "go there". I have decided to be happy with a sub 30 lb fully loaded for 6 days pack weight. Before food, water and fuel my pack weight is 18 lbs.There are some items I just don't want to leave behind. I dont' want to drink and eat from the same pot. I don't want to use the same bandana for personal cleaning and everthing else. I don't want to give up my pillow. Tried the stuff sack of clothes on one trip and couldn't ever get comfortable. I want the one change of clothes for mid hike. And I don't like alcohol stoves. And I just can't justify spending another 100.00 to get just one lb lighter.There! Said it and feel better.

IsNotAHome
05-14-2010, 15:12
If you can actually hike with a only a back pack full of gear then your already ahead of most people. If you think you've found your perfect place of weight vs. comfort then your ahead of most hikers, even UL's.

Hikes in Rain
05-14-2010, 15:22
Well, sub-30 loaded for six days, 18 before adding consumables, is pretty darned good, in my never to be humble opinion. Even with some untried new equipment, I doubt if I'm there. (But then, I still need to update my old Kelty external frame)

I agree with you, there are just some things I will not give up. They make me feel more comfortable, more civilized, and just generally add to my enjoyment of what's supposed to be a vacation, after all. To quote Nessmuk: "We go to the woods not to rough it, but to smooth it."

Pagandaddy
05-14-2010, 16:09
30 lbs is not a bad weight considering you will be shedding weight everyday by eating.

I have yet to upgrade my external frame also. But I have taken the original bag off and replaced it with a mesh bag saving a couple of pounds. Not having a pack against my back and soaked with sweat after hiking in the muggy South all day is worth a pound in pack weight.

Just Jeff
05-14-2010, 16:13
18 lbs is lightweight, if you ask me. Not ultralight or anything, but who cares?

I can barely tell the difference between 15 lbs and 25 lbs on my back, so why bother leaving the amenities behind? I usually have a luxury or two in my pack.

safn1949
05-14-2010, 16:35
I went out recently after not hiking for almost 15 years and learned a big lesson.I'm not 30 anymore,man what I carried at 30 is heavy as hell now at 54,whew.

So I have changed packs,sleeping bags,tent and cut down on the amount of food I carried.I like my comfort but I got rid of about 15 lbs.Man what a difference.I haven't weighed my new pack and gear yet as I am waiting for the sleeping bag but my guess is I went from 26 lbs minus food to about 19-20 lbs.I need to work on the food weight.

I found that out on the trail some of my menu was simply too heavy and too much food.I would like to keep the whole thing at less the 30 lbs with 4 days of food.:D

Pack 6 lbs down to 3.5 lbs
Sleeping bag 3 lbs down to 1.5 lbs
Cooking gear 15.9 oz down to 6 oz (just the pot and lid)
Tent 4 lbs 7 oz down to 2 lbs 6 oz

garlic08
05-14-2010, 16:43
...And I just can't justify spending another 100.00 to get just one lb lighter...

Where does this $100 per pound number come from? I've heard it before here in AT World and don't understand it. The exception, of course, is the sleeping bag, but only if one is forced to pay full retail.

I've spent about $800 for my gear which happens to weigh about eight pounds, but if I got a heavier pack, pad, and tent it would cost quite a bit more. My pack cost $80, tent $200, pad $20. I got real lucky and got my $360 sleeping bag for $180. My stove, when I carry one, was free. When I don't carry one, it's even freer--no need to buy fuel.

Just because I like to hike with an eight pound load doesn't mean anyone else should. I'm glad you found your happy weight. There are some I see with 5 pound loads which I know I'll likely never do and that's OK too.

stranger
05-14-2010, 16:46
18 lbs base weight is better than most people. It's all about what makes you comfortable in the woods, it's not all about weight.

I've always loved how many (not all) ultralighters will brag about their 12 ounce tarp, then watch the great lengths they go to to avoid ever sleeping under it, very amusing indeed. Like they will die if they don't get shelter space or something haha. Or they go..."but it's gonna rain", like that's the first time the thought came into their mind!

I ended up going fairly light but it had nothing to do with a desire to go light, it came with experience, and finding what I liked versus what I didn't like. I have good gear, but there is certainly better out there, and if I spent more time at camp I might carry more than I do. I got rid of stuff I didn't use, and I lightened up what I could, within reason.

Going light isn't about having the lightest 40 items, it's about only carrying 15-20 items, but if you find you need to carry 50 items to be happy, well you need to carry those 50 items then.

Low 30's all up is a fine weight, and it sounds like you know what you are doing, and know what you need, so no worries!

Bear Cables
05-14-2010, 17:20
I went out recently after not hiking for almost 15 years and learned a big lesson.I'm not 30 anymore,man what I carried at 30 is heavy as hell now at 54,whew.

So I have changed packs,sleeping bags,tent and cut down on the amount of food I carried.I like my comfort but I got rid of about 15 lbs.Man what a difference.I haven't weighed my new pack and gear yet as I am waiting for the sleeping bag but my guess is I went from 26 lbs minus food to about 19-20 lbs.I need to work on the food weight.

I found that out on the trail some of my menu was simply too heavy and too much food.I would like to keep the whole thing at less the 30 lbs with 4 days of food.:D

Pack 6 lbs down to 3.5 lbs
Sleeping bag 3 lbs down to 1.5 lbs
Cooking gear 15.9 oz down to 6 oz (just the pot and lid)
Tent 4 lbs 7 oz down to 2 lbs 6 oz

I totally agree about the difference between 30 and 54. I started hiking at 40 with 48 lbs.I am now pushing 56 but with the new gear available now it's easier to drop the weight of the Big 3.
My tent wt went from 8 lb Eureka to a 3 lb spitfire to a 27 oz Contrail
Bag went from a 3 lbs synthetic to a 22 oz down and Pack from a huge Kelty at about 5 lbs to a Golite Quest at 2lb14 oz.

Bear Cables
05-14-2010, 17:25
[QUOTE=garlic08;1012858]Where does this $100 per pound number come from? I've heard it before here in AT World and don't understand it. The exception, of course, is the sleeping bag, but only if one is forced to pay full retail./QUOTE]

I got that amount after identifying a few items that could be purchase in a lighter weight version. For example a plastic type sharp knife at .7 oz instead of my 1.5 oz one, a lighter bear line system, a lighter LED clip on light. just to name a few. Then there's the whole " Do I really want to spend 299.00 on a 5oz cuben fiber tarp?
So my 100.0 per 1lb was based on replacing certain items specific to my gear.

safn1949
05-14-2010, 17:29
I was just so used to carrying 40+ lbs (not knowing any better) that when I tried to do that a month ago (at 54) I almost killed myself.Holy cow,did I ditch some weight and fast.

As it is I injured my right knee and had to call it a day.Lesson learned,who said the old dog can't learn a new trick.:banana

JAK
05-14-2010, 17:45
Adapt as you go.

Dogwood
05-14-2010, 20:30
I also agree with Garlic08. Maybe, for you and your situation you equate going lighter with $100/lb but that does not mean it has to be the case in general. Yes, sometimes replacing certain items of your hiking kit, or certainly regearing your whole kit, with the absolute lightest wt gear requires departing with some extra do re mi. But, it does not always have to be that way.

You gave some good examples of going lighter and not having to break the bank when you switched out shelters - from the 8 lb Eureka(?) to the 3 lb Spitfire to the 27 oz Contrail. A Henry Shires Contrail Tarptent can be had for $200 or even less if you shop around or buy used which I ocassionaly see for sale. A Contrail is very cost competive to other conventionally weighted and priced shelters. You did the same with your pack. You went from a much heavier Kelty to a lighter GoLite Quest and I bet the GoLite Quest cost about the same, maybe even less than the Kelty.

I'll give you some more examples. My current goto thru-hiking pack is the ULA Conduit with all the features I desire, weighs 22 oz., and costs a whopping $125. I could easily have spent twice that for a similiar volumed pack that weighed twice as much. You also mention Cuben fiber tarps. My goto thru-hiking shelters are typically a Spinnaker or Cuben fiber tarp. I realize tarps are not for everyone. There are sometimes issues that have to be worked out when using a tarp in certain condtions. But, even though both my Spinnaker and Cuben fiber tarps are custom sized, which I paid extra for, I still didn't spend more than $225 for either one of them. If you were really interested in a Cuben fiber tarp, and again you have to consider if a tarp or a tarp made from Cuben fiber is right for you and your hike(s), I think if you shop around you will find you can purchase Cuben fiber tarps for much less than the $299 you claim you need to spend for a Cuben fiber tarp. I know Mountain Laurel Designs, ZPacks, and Oware, among others, manufacture Cuben fiber tarps under $200.

Consider also, that those transitioning to lighter wt. or UL gear, don't usually do it all at once. You can purchase this kind of gear as your knowledge of what you want and what's available grows, as I suspect you did when you transitioned to lighter wt shelters. Perhaps, the Contrail suits you fine and that's as low wt as you wish to go. Great! You don't need the latest greatest lightest wt gear to backpack and don't let anyone look down on you who tells you otherwise!

And, it's not just light wt gear that can carry a high price tag sometimes it's just more technical gear, or the newest hottest gear, or gear with more features(which also tends to be heavier) that can put a pinch on hiking gear budgets. And, if you have any doubts that UL, or at least lighter wt gear, can be purchased at deep discounts or home built at an actual lower price than most conventional weighted gear you should read some of Sgt Rock's suggestions in some of his articles here on WB. Going UL with your whole kit, or just specific pieces, DOES NOT necessarily mean having to go Ultra expensive!

OK Great. I'm glad we all feel better. Now, let's go out and backpack which is what backpacking is really all about.

sbhikes
05-14-2010, 20:37
I started the PCT with about 22lbs. As I went along, there were a lot of things I did not need after all. So I sent them home. I figured out after a while that long distance hiking is different than the kind where you enjoy the camping more. You don't need as much stuff when long-distance hiking. It's sort of counter-intuitive, but that's how it appears to work for lots of people. Eventually I also replaced a few things -- yes, during the hike. I bought a different pack (actually a heavier one) and sleeping bag. Yay Internet! I probably got down to 18 pounds or so.

Then I spent the winter between my hikes getting rid of even more weight. I bought an $80 pack (and then a $40 one -- funny how sometimes lighter is cheaper). I went through several Red Bull and V-8 cans until I made a stove that would work. I ruined a couple of disposable cookie sheets. I bought several thrift store items before settling on the clothing I liked. I dumpster dived and collected junk I found walking the neighborhood. I dropped a bowling ball's worth of weight with my super cheap efforts. I felt proud of my hiker trash/dirtbagger/bag lady gear.

I posted my gear last weekend on BP Light. Most, but not all, of it is the same stuff I had on the PCT. Here is my gear (http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=32488).

I'm sure not everyone would be happy with so little and I know you can find fault with my stuff. I just wanted to show you can go light with hobo trash and it's not required to spend a lot of money. Once you get this light, you can add back the things that really make you happy. Such as a book. I wished I had had a book.

Bear Cables
05-15-2010, 01:52
Going UL with your whole kit, or just specific pieces, DOES NOT necessarily mean having to go Ultra expensive!

OK Great. I'm glad we all feel better. Now, let's go out and backpack which is what backpacking is really all about.

Good post! Good points and let's go hike!

Bear Cables
05-15-2010, 01:55
SBHikes, I saw your post on backpackinglight. Impressed but, again, not ready to go there. But still impressed.

sbhikes
05-15-2010, 09:10
You don't have to go there. 18lbs isn't a ton. But if you ever do want to go lighter, like if you want to do a hike where the goal is making a lot of distance in a short amount of time with a reliable and dry weather forecast, you can do it cheaply with hobo trash like I did.

Fiddleback
05-15-2010, 11:39
I think the true gram weenie may exist but I dunno. My definition of such is someone who, no matter what, continually works to reduce pack weight. That is, low(er) weight is paramount to all other considerations. I have never met anyone like that.

To me light/ultralight backpacking is about reducing pack weight without sacrificing safety or comfort. If reducing weight impacts either of those two considerations, then it is foolish in the first, and too extreme for me in the second.

As pointed out above, 'weight' is only one facet of comfort on the trail. One should carry what makes the trip fun, comfortable and safe. But by mixing and matching, adding here and cutting there, and paying attention to (appropriate) dual use, one can take a whole lotta weight off the back.

I use to carry a 30lb base weight...now it's about 15 (yet I pack for colder nights). Some of that reduction is due to new products, new technology, or old concepts and gear that I learned about and adopted. But the huge for me bottom line after cutting my pack weight in half...? I sleep more comfortably, hike more comfortably, and eat better than I ever did with the heavier pack.

Safety...comfort...enjoyment. Don't compromise the first...the rest is an individual decision of where to draw the line(s).

FB

Bear Cables
05-15-2010, 12:30
You don't have to go there. 18lbs isn't a ton. But if you ever do want to go lighter, like if you want to do a hike where the goal is making a lot of distance in a short amount of time with a reliable and dry weather forecast, you can do it cheaply with hobo trash like I did.

Your right about the forcast. Knowing what to expect can help add or eliminate a certain amount of gear. It's the uncertianty of it that makes me carry more gear than really might or might not need.

East Coast Alex
05-16-2010, 20:55
To me light/ultralight backpacking is about reducing pack weight without sacrificing safety ...


I have a random sort of "gram weenie" verus "safety" question that requires some honesty, regarding whether any of you guys routinely leave the compass home, because you've found that you really don't need it on a marked trail?

Seems people might be loathe to admit that they would do that, as it is often drilled into people heads that you simply "need," a compass, or else you are supposedly the worlds biggest dumb-ass for not having one... or so the survival experts like to say...... but anyway, just thought I'd ask.


I usually tote it along anyway, but I feel it is more out of an obligatory nature than actually needing it. Oftentimes I get the feeling that it's just a useless piece of crap that is sucking up vital room in my pack that otherwise could be a slot filled by something more useful.

It's not the compass is heavy, or takes up much space... as its probably one of the lightest and most compact things in any persons pack.... but on a well marked trail.... I often feel like I just don't need it.


Quite frankly, I'd rather have a GPS, weighing my options between the two. I'm especially not pleased about having to tote around that thing either, as a GPS is considerably larger and moreover substantially heavier... but all in all..... I seem to find it more useful, as it pegs my exact spot on a trail map.. and that's all I really want to know. A compass doesn't really do that for me.

safn1949
05-16-2010, 21:27
I took my compass and ground all the excess plastic off it.So it's about half the size it started and it is a good compass,not some $2 pos.

With a good compass and a good map you can triangulate your position if you can see 2 landmarks and find out exactly where you are.That's how it was done before GPS and really is quite simple.

And I will say from hard learned experience,we have no sense of direction as humans and can get turned around very quick.That's a real bad feeling.I paralleled a road for miles one time when I was young and also lost my pack on the AT when I stepped off to do my business.

I had to go down a hill to get a little privacy and I lost the trail...and my pack...for about 45 minutes.Don't think it can't happen to you.:D

sbhikes
05-16-2010, 21:30
I do not have or know how to use a GPS. I sent my compass home early on hiking the PCT. Last weekend hiking in my backcountry where the trails are crap I didn't even have a map.

A map and compass will only help with the gross route-finding. A map and compass isn't much help at all for the fine decisions. Is the trail 10 feet this way or that? I use other means to find the trail in those conditions.

On my PCT trip last year I got lost twice. The first time I used a topo map and identified all the peaks in my area, but I still could not find the way. I ended up taking a wrong turn because I saw a trail and just assumed it must be the right way, but it was an illegal motorcycle track. A GPS would have helped more than a compass. But this was not on the PCT yet (I hiked to the PCT) and the trails were not well defined.

The second time I got lost was on the PCT in the snow. I got confused and could not make any sense out of the signs and the trails. I was looking for an alternate route. I knew which way was north without a compass. I just took a guess, went cross-country and it turned out to be the wrong way. But I did not worry too much because I was going north so should find the road soon no matter what, which I did. A GPS might have helped here, too. But I don't have one nor do I want to care and feed one.

safn1949
05-16-2010, 21:39
A map and compass will only help with the gross route-finding. A map and compass isn't much help at all for the fine decisions.

Not true.As I said a good map and the ability to us it and a compass will pinpoint you pretty good.How do you think we did it in the Army without GPS? This was in the 70's and you could easily find out where you were if you knew how.I still know how to do grid coordinates down to a few feet.

That's how it's been done for a long time.:D

garlic08
05-16-2010, 22:51
On the AT, I hiked confidently the whole way with neither map nor compass and never had a problem. On the PCT, I used the compass maybe twice when the route was snow-covered, but just to orient the maps. On the CDT, a good compass was vital along with detailed topo maps and rarely left my hand or pocket. I never got lost there, either.

I agree with this thread drift topic--In my opinion, it's OK to leave one or more of the "Ten Essentials" behind sometimes. I'll often go on a full-day hike in benign weather and terrain with only one or two of them. Wikipedia says, "...many expert hikers do not always carry all the items," and cites Ray Jardine in a footnote (imagine that).

prain4u
05-16-2010, 23:05
A map and compass will only help with the gross route-finding. A map and compass isn't much help at all for the fine decisions.

Not true.As I said a good map and the ability to us it and a compass will pinpoint you pretty good.How do you think we did it in the Army without GPS? This was in the 70's and you could easily find out where you were if you knew how.I still know how to do grid coordinates down to a few feet.

That's how it's been done for a long time.:D

I agree 100%.

Many (but not all) of the people who say that they see no great value in carrying a map and compass generally don't know how to REALLY use a good map and good compass.

I became an Eagle Scout as a teenager and I have been a member of the Army National Guard for the past 13 years. In both organizations, I had to learn how to use a map and compass. I have navigated through some advanced compass and orienteering courses where I had to bushwhack through a half mile (or more) of extremely thick underbrush as I navigated between each point on the compass course. I had to arrive at the correct location using just a map, compass and pace count. On some TOUGH courses, being off by just 5-10 feet would have resulted in a total failure to successfully navigate the course. (In college, I also had a roommate who was ranked in the top 10 in the nation in competitive orienteering. I learned a lot from him).

It is amazing how valuable a good map and good compass can be--if you REALLY know how to use them.

prain4u
05-16-2010, 23:33
Okay, I've tried to consider ulta light weight or even light weight hiking but just can't "go there". I have decided to be happy with a sub 30 lb fully loaded for 6 days pack weight. Before food, water and fuel my pack weight is 18 lbs.There are some items I just don't want to leave behind. I dont' want to drink and eat from the same pot. I don't want to use the same bandana for personal cleaning and everthing else. I don't want to give up my pillow. Tried the stuff sack of clothes on one trip and couldn't ever get comfortable. I want the one change of clothes for mid hike. And I don't like alcohol stoves. And I just can't justify spending another 100.00 to get just one lb lighter.There! Said it and feel better.


I think that a sub-30 lbs (fully loaded) pack for 6 days is just fine. That would fit my definition of "lightweight" (The upper limits of lightweight--but lightweight nonetheless). Many people carry much heavier.

There is nothing wrong with carrying a little extra weight in order to have greater safety and greater comfort.

Lightweight (and ultralight weight) gear is not ALWAYS "more expensive" than "heavier weight" gear.

In recent years, I have replaced much of my equipment. (I had many pieces of gear that were 15-30 years old--so it was time to replace things.) When I have replaced these items--it has often not cost me all that much more to buy a QUALITY piece of lightweight or ultralight gear (as opposed to purchasing a quality piece of gear that weighed more). This is especially true if you are patient and willing to wait for great sales or purchase quality used equipment. I often find gear at 30% to 60% off the originally suggested retail price.

Wise Old Owl
05-16-2010, 23:34
Wow Bear Cables, looks like I cannot add much, as most here have answered your questions, except one small aspect..

As you get older the pack will need to be lightened up without spending a fortune..

So please go invest from a sporting good store a hanging digital fish scale and weigh you big four. As your "stuff" gets old don't hesitate to replace a peice one year to lighten your load. Donate the old stuff to the BSA and continue to enjoy the great outdoors.

TIDE-HSV
05-17-2010, 00:01
I wish I could rid myself of the old gear, instead of saving it back - just in case a friend needs it, you know? Eventually, I do get rid of it, but it's about a 20 year cycle...

Wise Old Owl
05-17-2010, 00:12
Uhh Yes, I too was once on a 20 year cycle .... How about a 10 year rotisserie?

You are not using Windows 1.1 or 95 - so why would you hang on to a 4 lbs. backpack from the 70's? just an educated guess....

Time for Hope & Change!

prain4u
05-17-2010, 01:28
Uhh Yes, I too was once on a 20 year cycle .... How about a 10 year rotisserie?

You are not using Windows 1.1 or 95 - so why would you hang on to a 4 lbs. backpack from the 70's? just an educated guess....

Time for Hope & Change!


For me, some pieces of my old gear have lots of "battle scars", memories and sentimental value. So, I keep them. Just last month, I was showing my daughter my 1977 external frame backpack. That pack has marks on it from where a bear swatted it around. The bear ultimately tossed it 15 feet. I like that pack--and would perhaps use it again tomorrow. I lived out of it for so many nights over so many years. It is like an "old, familiar, friend". So, I hang on to it.

In my opinion, much of the newer gear also does not have the same "character" and durability as the older stuff (except for the titanium gear). If World War III hit, and I had to "head to the hills" and survive for an undetermined length of time--I would probably grab my 33 year-old external frame pack over my newer packs.

(A side note regarding one of your other comments: I am an assistant Scoutmaster. Even if I keep my older gear--I occasionally buy OTHER new or used gear and donate it to BSA and to newbie hikers/campers).

sbhikes
05-17-2010, 17:31
A map and compass will only help with the gross route-finding. A map and compass isn't much help at all for the fine decisions.

Not true.As I said a good map and the ability to us it and a compass will pinpoint you pretty good.How do you think we did it in the Army without GPS? This was in the 70's and you could easily find out where you were if you knew how.I still know how to do grid coordinates down to a few feet.

That's how it's been done for a long time.:D

I'm talking for finding the trail itself. It's not always visible where I hike and a map and compass aren't really going to help me find it. Maybe help me find the way, but not the actual trail. The actual trail can be very important where I live because it's very hard to go cross-country without becoming hopelessly tangled in brush.

Here's an example. Can you find the trail? You are obviously on it, but where is it?

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_VnR7wusGJdY/Sdl6MVKaW2I/AAAAAAAACx8/EmIGQlDV5f0/s640/DSCN1472.JPG

In the Sierra It was sometimes hard to find the actual trail no matter how precise you could be with a compass. The map had 80 foot contour lines so it was pretty unhelpful with fine-grained route-finding. Switchbacks didn't show on the map. If you missed a switchback, it could be very difficult to find the continuation of the trail among the rocks and snow. Sure you might know where you were and where you were going, but without the trail, the going would be difficult on all the loose talus.

safn1949
05-17-2010, 17:34
I stand corrected.:D

Dogwood
05-17-2010, 18:49
There is nothing wrong with carrying a little extra weight in order to have greater safety and greater comfort. - Prain4u

Fine, but I think gear wt, whether it being heavier or lighter in wt, IS NOT the absolute indication of how safe or not safe it is to hike or how comforable it may/may not make a hike. IMO, safety and comfort are not absolutely determined by the wt of my gear. Even when going to extremes, hiking with extremely heavy gear(80 + lbs) or hiking with insanely seeming light loads on LONG distance treks in remote areas(think of some of Andew Skurka's treks like the one I think he's doing in AK right now or Ryan Jordan's trek in the Arctic) there are conditions in which hiking folks find safety and comfort with very heavy and very light gear.

Dogwood
05-17-2010, 19:06
Come on Sbhikes. The trail is obvious. Um, it's just to the left of the register. Um, no, I mean it's between those three rocks. Um, yeah, it's right near those scraggly bushes, going to the upper left corner of the photo. See the trail of cigarette butts? Baltimore Jack was on this trail! No, no, the trail goes staright ahead into the opening in the, what looks like, burnt trees. OK OK I got it. Trick question. The trail isn't in the picture. It goes up to the bottom left just out of the picture frame.

Actually, if you look near the center of the picture where I said there were three rocks it's really a string of rocks in a rather un-natural looking straight line, a likely clue that aliens have landed there.

Ladytrekker
05-17-2010, 19:53
I am tweaking my gear. I went on a 3 day hike took my pack to Publix threw it on the scale and it was 39 lbs (was a little freaked) hiked with it anyway and will never do that again. The hike I am fixing to do I am at 26 lbs without water. I know that it is my tent and sleeping bag. I was using a Osprey Ariel 65 the fit is perfect but the pack is huge and heavy. I just recently got a ULA Circuit the fit is good and the pack is much lighter.

I think this summer I am going to try to purchase the Tarptent Moment and a Mont-bell Super Spiral 30 degree sleeping bag that will take 3 lbs off the weight.

I will never be an Ultra but that 39 lb pack taught me a huge lesson. I am just a work in progress.

Graywolf
05-17-2010, 20:04
Im one who I have to be lost to get lost. My father, brother, friends all say I have one of the keenest sense of direction they know. (That is one reason they call me Graywolf). I remember in 1986 when I was staying at Cass Arkansas for Job Corps. One week end a friend of mine and I wanted to go and hike a little of the Ozark Highlands Trail, which wasnt far but didnt know which way. i took a map and made a rough estimate and told my friend if we took a small woods road that was just noth of us, then crossed a large field, up a ridge line, we would intercept it at a stream crossing. All this from an outdated topo map of the Boston Ranger District.. We walked out, down the short road, crossed a fence, through the fields, up the ridge, then to the stream, there was the blaze, and there was the trail..All with out map and compass..

I cant get lost if my life depened on it.. As long as Im in the Mountains, I am found...

Graywolf

prain4u
05-18-2010, 01:38
"There is nothing wrong with carrying a little extra weight in order to have greater safety and greater comfort". - Prain4u

Fine, but I think gear wt, whether it being heavier or lighter in wt, IS NOT the absolute indication of how safe or not safe it is to hike or how comforable it may/may not make a hike. IMO, safety and comfort are not absolutely determined by the wt of my gear. Even when going to extremes, hiking with extremely heavy gear(80 + lbs) or hiking with insanely seeming light loads on LONG distance treks in remote areas(think of some of Andew Skurka's treks like the one I think he's doing in AK right now or Ryan Jordan's trek in the Arctic) there are conditions in which hiking folks find safety and comfort with very heavy and very light gear.

I am not disagreeing with you. When I wrote my response, I was not attempting to get into the whole lightweight vs. heavyweight debate (and which one is allegedly safer or more comfortable). I was merely responding to what the original poster had written. The original poster was talking about carrying EXTRA THINGS--some of which are indeed heavier--in order to insure their comfort.


Okay, I've tried to consider ultra light weight or even light weight hiking but just can't "go there". I have decided to be happy with a sub 30 lb fully loaded for 6 days pack weight. Before food, water and fuel my pack weight is 18 lbs.There are some items I just don't want to leave behind. I dont' want to drink and eat from the same pot. I don't want to use the same bandana for personal cleaning and everthing else. I don't want to give up my pillow. Tried the stuff sack of clothes on one trip and couldn't ever get comfortable. I want the one change of clothes for mid hike. And I don't like alcohol stoves. And I just can't justify spending another 100.00 to get just one lb lighter.There! Said it and feel better.

Bear Cables
05-18-2010, 15:31
Wow Bear Cables, looks like I cannot add much, as most here have answered your questions, except one small aspect..

As you get older the pack will need to be lightened up without spending a fortune..

So please go invest from a sporting good store a hanging digital fish scale and weigh you big four. As your "stuff" gets old don't hesitate to replace a peice one year to lighten your load. Donate the old stuff to the BSA and continue to enjoy the great outdoors.

I do have a digital postal scale and a digital fish scale. I weighed everthing. Big three weighs 6.5 lbs. By way of an update: I continue to sort and weigh and by repackaging some items, using smaller portions based on what I usually come home with and didn't use, eliminating certain non essential clothing items etc I have whittled the base weight do 16 lbs. So if my food per day stays around 1.5 -1.6 lbs and I can carry 1.5 L of water at a time (depending on distance to water sources) I can anticipate my total weight to be right at 25 lbs for a 6 day hike. I feel pretty good about that. I will check the weather the night before and if the forcast is for fair weather the first 24 hours or so I will leave my tent and just use my tarp as we will be in the Smokies after our first night and must sleep in the shelters. So why bring a tent I won't use. That will cut another 1.8 lbs and give me a chance to experience tarp camping.

And I am all about donating older stuff to BSA as I have two Eagle Scouts and was an active committee member and merit badge counselor for years!

JustaTouron
05-18-2010, 16:01
I have but four words of advice for you.........


H.Y.O.H.

warraghiyagey
05-18-2010, 18:34
Those aren't words, they're letters. . . .

Bear Cables
05-18-2010, 19:20
I will never be an Ultra but that 39 lb pack taught me a huge lesson. I am just a work in progress.

I know what you're talking about! My first years backpacking my pack was 48 lbs!!!!!! so getting down to sub 30 , Hopefully closer to 25-26 is BIG!

Wise Old Owl
05-18-2010, 19:43
Come on Sbhikes. The trail is obvious. Um, it's just to the left of the register. Um, no, I mean it's between those three rocks. Um, yeah, it's right near those scraggly bushes, going to the upper left corner of the photo. See the trail of cigarette butts? Baltimore Jack was on this trail! No, no, the trail goes staright ahead into the opening in the, what looks like, burnt trees. OK OK I got it. Trick question. The trail isn't in the picture. It goes up to the bottom left just out of the picture frame.

Actually, if you look near the center of the picture where I said there were three rocks it's really a string of rocks in a rather un-natural looking straight line, a likely clue that aliens have landed there.

Don't sign up for "The MadTracker"