Pack Weight

[Connie]

The AT also requires balance getting around big boulders and mountaintops. There is scrambling, that is rock climbing with fixed aids and no aids. There is crawling thru rocks and boulders pushing or pulling your pack thru.

Scenes that actually show the "trail" are at YouTube.

Big backpacks, as seen in military service or in the movies, are not carried by backpackers for a reason.

Cheryl Strayed did a section of the trail, if that. Her purpose was not the hike.

If you have good balance and agility with a heavy and bulky backpack, your backpack is okay, that is, if you can get thru the more difficult narrow places and those places that require balance on the AT.

[RED-DOG]

I am at 10.5lbs without consumables, add 3-5 days of food, 2 32oz bottles of water and 2 4oz MSR canisters and I am at 25lbs.

[Connie]

One small cannister can go 3-5 days, unless you leave it on, or, perhaps heat hot water for washing up.

I think you might be able to get food weight down, also. There are low weight - low volume food staples.

[comanche8f]

The AT also requires balance getting around big boulders and mountaintops. There is scrambling, that is rock climbing with fixed aids and no aids. There is crawling thru rocks and boulders pushing or pulling your pack thru.

Scenes that actually show the "trail" are at YouTube.

Big backpacks, as seen in military service or in the movies, are not carried by backpackers for a reason.

Cheryl Strayed did a section of the trail, if that. Her purpose was not the hike.

If you have good balance and agility with a heavy and bulky backpack, your backpack is okay, that is, if you can get thru the more difficult narrow places and those places that require balance on the AT.

I have the new Osprey 65 AG. This thing is awesome. ( http://www.rei.com/product/878452/os...-65-ag-ex-pack ) It is 4lb 11oz, but the Anti-gravity makes it feel like it ways less than a pound when it is on your back. The weight disbursement is awesome, so is the way it keeps the frame off your back. So, yeah, I love it.

It will not be a problem taking on boulders, well no more than usual. Up until recent there was no such thing as UL hiking.

People carried much larger, large exterior framed packs. If they could do it, then I sure can do it with this. I could carry a military pack , 8lbs, with 50lbs of gear and make it just fine. I just wouldn't be happy with myself about it.

Just because UL is the way to go these days, doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done. I am out there to enjoy myself, if I need 100lbs to enjoy myself, then that is what I will carry. I do agree that lighter is better, but to an extent, I am not going to saw off my toothbrush handles and cut tags off my shirt to save a few grams.

I am trying to go as light as possible, but I want a bag that I can abuse, that has pockets and is comfortable. I want a tent that I can relax in on a zero day, and I am just SOL on my sleeping bag since I have to use synthetic.

[russb]

Up until recent there was no such thing as UL hiking.

Actually UL has been around a lot longer than most think. At the turn of the last century the woodsman Horace Kephart and Nessmuk wrote quite a bit about lightweight gear lists. Nessmuk himslef used the term "Go light" decades before the company that bears its name. It wasn't until after WWII when all the heavy old military stuff was used by the average joe. The 60s and 70s began to lighten up with nylon. The external packs of those days were bulky but not very heavy. I still have my external frame pack and it weighs less than 3 lbs. The difference is it can carry more weight than the modern internals. So, the idea that UL is new is not true. It has been around for over 100 years. Most woodsman will progress from heavy to light as they gain knowledge and experience. And some just re-discovered it and think it is new.

[comanche8f]

Actually UL has been around a lot longer than most think. At the turn of the last century the woodsman Horace Kephart and Nessmuk wrote quite a bit about lightweight gear lists. Nessmuk himslef used the term "Go light" decades before the company that bears its name. It wasn't until after WWII when all the heavy old military stuff was used by the average joe. The 60s and 70s began to lighten up with nylon. The external packs of those days were bulky but not very heavy. I still have my external frame pack and it weighs less than 3 lbs. The difference is it can carry more weight than the modern internals. So, the idea that UL is new is not true. It has been around for over 100 years. Most woodsman will progress from heavy to light as they gain knowledge and experience. And some just re-discovered it and think it is new.

I realize light hiking has been around for a while, I was more referring to the gram counters. Nobody wants to carry a heavy pack, I am just saying up until recent the weight of these packs were not heard of. I consider myself a comfort hiker. I will not be losing a lot of heavy stuff, well, my winter gear, but that is not that much weight. I will always be under 35lbs, except if I decide to carry more that 5 days of food at the end. I am pretty experienced outdoors. No, I have never walked 2k in a 6 month span, but I have put plenty of miles on myself. I am carrying several items that I don't "need", but I want. Also, I am not going to go with a 1lb tent or tarp if that is not what makes me comfy, I am not going to carry a 2lb pack because it's light. In my opinion, sometimes the weight out weighs the lack of. (pun intended) . Also, I will put this AG pack against a UL any day. I still can't believe how light it feels when on you. I will walk 10 miles with it packed to the max and it seems as if I only have 10lbs on my back. I realize there is a big difference between 10 and 2k, but I have a good feel for packs, and this is the best I have ever felt.

[russb]

I realize light hiking has been around for a while, I was more referring to the gram counters.

In that case you would be correct, because the fellows I mentioned did not use the metric system. They did however keep track of every bit of weight. The lists they kept look very similar to the gram counters of today, with every item accounted for, bringing the lightest possible, or going without. Kephart wrote of a fellow who had very expensive gear made of the finest of fabrics and eider down which weighed very little. A japanese silk tent at 13 oz, and a down quilt at 20oz. The gentleman also carried a "spirit burner", what we today call an alcohol stove. This man's entire backpacking kit was under 10 pounds.

[comanche8f]

In that case you would be correct, because the fellows I mentioned did not use the metric system. They did however keep track of every bit of weight. The lists they kept look very similar to the gram counters of today, with every item accounted for, bringing the lightest possible, or going without. Kephart wrote of a fellow who had very expensive gear made of the finest of fabrics and eider down which weighed very little. A japanese silk tent at 13 oz, and a down quilt at 20oz. The gentleman also carried a "spirit burner", what we today call an alcohol stove. This man's entire backpacking kit was under 10 pounds.

Yes, I know the history quite well. Even that Earl Shaffer managed to do it with a 20lb pack. The difference of 20lbs then and 20 now is huge. 20 LBS in a bad pack can feel like the weight of the world.

Point is, I am going to carry what is comfortable. 35 lbs is nothing to me, like I said, I would like a 20lb pack, but just isn't happening. I put all my gear in one bag and it felt like 35lbs, if not more. I put it in my new one, feels like nothing. So I am not buying into getting this pack because it is two pounds, when a 4lb bag has the potential to hold up better and be more comfortable. If you are happy with 10 or 20lbs, then go for it. Nothing against you. I am happy with 35 lbs, which feels like nothing. Why would you go without, if you don't mind the weight? I like to enjoy my down time, and I guarantee that me carrying a 35lb back will not keep me from finishing.