::: Dino seen ROTFLMAO :::Originally Posted by Mags
Thanks for putting this in perspective.
We were doing 5 day trips back in 1970 with a pack weighing in right around 40-42 lbs. Now, for the same trip the pack weighs 33-35. Always been weight conscious - nothing new - technology and WB just make it easier these days. And most of the old tricks still work. But, I'm gunna be reasonably comfortable, SAFE, and self-sufficient.
you summed it up FD!!
Frolicking Dianasaurs..
There you have it in a nut shell.. exactly why I take exception to the ultralight philosophy. I have no problem with trying to get rid of "unnecessary weight" but I part company with these folks when it becomes strictly all about big miles and getting to shelters and towns!
In my thru hike.. I carried probably around 30 pounds when going into town... and 40-50 pounds (and probably 55 in the 100 miles wilderness) when I was leaving towns. But I would be away from towns for 4-5 days at a time. So that is food for 15 meals, fuel, etc etc. The ultra lighters almost always were going for 20+ miles per day and spent much less time between towns.
DavidNH
If you're going to present it as an either/or proposition (which it isn't) then I'd say it's a choice between comfort while hiking, and comfort at camp.
I don't care how old or fit you are; the less you carry on your back, the faster, more comfortably, and more efficiently you move through the woods. But of course there's no free lunch; with a minimalist pack, you give up some comfort and convenience at camp.
It's not black-and-white, either/or. There's a continuum between heavy and light, and every hiker gets to choose where they want to be in that regard.
The obsession with mileage for the ULers is due I think to a mental investment in athleticism(a macho kind of Ironman mentality)where the ego must be placated with the completion of long distances every day. Hence their tunnel vision over light gear, the endless discussions over solo tents and sleeping systems, and their fixation with grams.
So from whence hast this UL craze sprung?? Perhaps the generation so enamored with UL philosophy(as ironically taught by oldsters like Jardine), are burned-out couch potatoes and computer-addicted Playstation Gamers who see the AT and backpacking trips as a maze-like game to be finished with as much speed and quickness as possible. Their alpha or beta or whatever brain waves, so used to video games and television, can only be fed in the green tunnel by moving fast with little weight. Gotta keep moving, the mantra of the modern day backpacker. The first-person shooter mode but with a hiking pole instead of a game console.
So when you see a current day backpacker out on some trail, they will stop to chat for a moment or two but they're always inching forward, inching forward. To actually stop and take off the pack and sit? Verboten!! It's a strange compulsion to allow the mileage demon to prod and poke, that danged reptile who won't be satisfied until we're all jogging along the AT wearing butt packs.
I think HYOH is best. When I go thru'in then I keep it light (27 to 32 depending on weather including 4 days food). At home on the 'ten miles in, camp, bounce around fifteen miles, then hike out ten' trips I carry 55 including a frozen box of wine. Very popular with my hiker friends that way
It's certainly not an either-or question...especially when the definition of ultra-light itself isn't in concrete. In my own attempts to cut weight I've ended up more comfortable on the trail (lighter packweight, 'better' clothing, lighter but more convenient water treatment), more comfortable in camp (from tent to hammock, better food through FBC, better sleep system, better wash-up, lighter 'entertainment') and safer (the same dual-use concept used to cut weight also results in most things being 'backed up'...I also carry bear spray now whereas I didn't in the past). Given all that, my pack weight is still less than half of what it used to be...
Comfort and safety need not be, should not be, indeed is not, compromised simply because you exchange a heavy item for a light item.
Let's face it...individual attitudes and personal approaches to backpacking are myriad just as are the reasons for doing it in the first place. In my own backpacking, only once did I carry more than 40lbs and I've never done 15 miles a day at any packweight. And I, for one, never got the attraction of shelters or trail towns...
FB
"All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment..."
Article II, Section 3
The Constitution of the State of Montana
ultra light vs unultralight
I think Frosty has hit the ole nail on the head. I actually dont hike that much any longer, but when I was in my "hayday" so to speak I went according to the trip. As light as 35lbs and probably as heavey as 65lbs, or slose. Also as Mags said---It's all good! I judged by the trip, but a rule of my own was not to "beg from others" ie: boil water ha ha ...It's all good.
I like my beer, but have always preferred to carry more concentrated alcohol on the trail. Wine or Irish Cream when I was younger, whiskey or brandy now.
Frosty the wise man
Has made an astute post
With his note of hiker's major goal
His acumen Dinos toast.
This day and age,no reason to .Heck 15 yr's ago you could go lite.Some just choose not to and pay in the long run.
Im thinking about a sled with wheels, or mabe a radio flyer. You know to carry my solar powered mini fridge.
Like it goes,Bold riders and old riders...but no bold old riders.
Meaning what, exactly?Like it goes,Bold riders and old riders...but no bold old riders.
Man that is Funny --- guess what I DID THAT!
Learn from your mistakes.
Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
Woo
20 pounds isn't ultralight?
if 20 pounds isn't ultralight, what is?
IMO, low teens or less is ultralight.
SPOT ON.
Just smart with age.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
