Seattle GHB - test run 1

I took my modied Seattle Get Home Bag (GHB) for a test run today. I put on my normal work clothes, put on my GHB boots and headed out to a friends house. For those interested in what's in my GHB and why, see the separate thread "Seattle GHB".

After a previous test hike, I found that I wanted a small accessible pocket for keys, flashlights, etc. I also found it difficult to reach the water bottles in my pack while on the move, so wanted an easier to access water source. A cheap solution I ran across was a separate small waistpouch that held a water bottle and had two small pockets. I thought I would try it out on this trip, so strapped it around my waist in addition to my backpack.

Here are miscellaneous notes from the trip:


Distance: 6.6 miles (according to Google maps)

This was a summer hike, so I removed the following from the pack before I set out:

long underwear
camp towel
pen/cards/notebook
dogbowl
shampoo/toobrush/toothpaste
paper maps (took laminated instead).

Backpack weight: 24 lbs 7 oz
including 2 ltrs of water, gore-tex jacket, and sleeping pad

Waistpouch weight: 2 lbs 3 oz
including 1/2 litre of water, keys, cell, and radio/headphones

Found the built-in straps on bottom of my northface recon pack are really short. I can fit a rolled sleeping pad in, but could not fit the pad and my coat which had been my plan. Strapped the coat over the top of the pack instead. I am going to look at extending the bottom straps.

Attached the reflective "slow vehicle" sign to back of pack. Sign had been rolled up inside the pack and did not unroll very well. Might need to store it flat. Attaching it using the sign's built-in waist-strap was kind of jury-rigged. A better/faster way to attach the sign would be helpful. Could not find a good way to attach the sign when the pack cover was in place. Need to look into that.

I used two utility carabiners to attach water bottles to pack to keep them from falling out of side mesh pockets. Worked much better than using the pack tightening straps I had originally been using.

Wore a small separate waistpouch that held a small water bottle, keys, cell, and am/fm radio. Worked really well.

Meant to take some ibuprofen before leaving but forgot.

Started the hike between 11:30 and 12am.

Weather was overcast with rain/drizzle the whole way. 65 degrees. Mild wind.

Did not take my PSK on a neck strap. Still debating this. Main reason for it is if somebody takes my pack, I still have some basics.

The pack cover just barely fit the pack without my jacket strapped to the top. Did not try it with the jacket, but probably would not have fit. Need a bigger cover. Also need one that is not bright silverish-grey.

I took the pack cover off after about a mile. In the light drizzle, the pack seemed to stay pretty dry without it. The jacket was covering the top of the pack though.

My trekking pole (LEKI Wanderfreund Antishock) worked fine and proved very useful and quite capable of knocking the attacking blackberry vines out of the way. It worked much better than the folding shock-corded Stansport I had tried on a previous test. Still need to work on length, I kept making the trekking pole shorter throughout the trip. Was really thinking two would be nice (as several people have recommended) by about 2/3's of the way through my hike.

Other than radio, jacket and pack cover, never used anything else in my pack.

Knew the route well enough, I didn't even use the maps.

The Coby headphones worked great. Don't think I need the ear buds after all. Not the best quality sound, but for this purpose, quality is not that important. Comfort and stability are. The Coby's worked fine for me on all counts.

My hat, a Outdoor Research "Seattle Sombrero" worked really well. Kept the rain off my head and face, did not get too hot or sweaty, stayed on well.

Having the small water bottle on my belt to drink from worked really, really well. It was actually a 1/2 litre of bottled water. While the belt pouch does hold a full 1 litre Nalgene, I think it would have been to big and uncomfortable. Drinking from the small bottle and filling it every once in a while from the big bottles would probably be a great combo. With the small mouth on the smaller bottle I had with me, would have been difficult, but I think a 1/2 litre wide-mouth Nalgene would make this really easy. Will look for one.

When wearing the hat, I tended to keep my head down to keep wind from blowing the brim up. This worked well, but restricted my visibility quite a bit. Probably not a good thing in a real GHB scenario.

When I met people while walking, I did my normal look at them and nod/smile. In a real scenario, I think I would still do this, but should be far more alert, keep more distance between us, be ready to move fast if needed, and have my trekking pole in a position for quick defensive use.

Pavement is pretty hard stuff. Some additional padding in the hiking boots would be helpful. Will look to see if I can find something that will fit and is not to squishy.

Only drank 1/2 litre of water on this trip. Was cool and rainy, but should probably have had more to drink. Toward the end of the trip, I was debating about stopping and getting water out of my pack to drink, but knew I only had a mile or so to go and just kept going instead. Worked fine, but not sure that was a good decision.

The am/fm radio certainly helped make the trip seem to go faster. However, during a real scenario, there might not be any stations operational. If so, an mp3 player might help considerably. A combo am/fm/mp3 would be great. Long battery life and excellent fm and am reception are the most important factors though. Most mp3 players I know of with bult-in radios have pretty poor reception.

While the radio made the trip go faster, it probably also lulled me into not paying as close attention to my surroundings as I should. I wonder about the trade-off between alertness and help with the psychology of getting home.

Total Hike time: 2 hrs 6 min

Overall:

Backpack and waistpouch were comfortable the whole way. Never felt like the pack was to heavy. In fact didn't even notice it most of the time. Bottom of my feet were getting sore as were my legs. No problems with breathing. Think I could have gone another hour fairly well, but it would start getting pretty hard after that. (As I said before, that pavement is hard!) While this test was only about a third of what the hike from my office to home would be, it did give me more confidence in making it. If worse comes to worse, you can make it a long way by taking 100 steps at a time. All in all a successful test and maybe I am not in quite as a bad a shape as I thought.

Good post test report.

You may want to do your feet, legs and back a favor and look for something more suitable for the urban jungle / hiking environment that you probably most encounter. I never wear heavy hiking boots in urban areas nor the back country unless it is on very difficult terrain and my pack weight is above 40 lbs or there is deep enough snow. In amongst my ever expanding hiking footwear collection, 90% of the time I slip on a pair of these ankle height hiking shoes. They are lightweight, waterproof, have a Vibram sole and very durable. I also have another similar pair that are not waterproof and use them when the PNW weather is not as wet in the late spring and summer.

Nice write-up on your test run. Great exercise that, together with your other thread, has rejuvenated my own planning. Thanks.


You touch on something — situation awareness — that's an important piece of your "survival toolkit." Since it depends on what you see and what you hear going on around you, wearing headphones would impair your effectiveness. Depending on nature and severity of disaster, time of day, and neighborhood/area you're traveling, could mean increased peril.

Granted, the radio would presumably provide information useful to broader SA, but perhaps best monitored selectively.

Here's brief write-up on situation awareness, some of which you might find applicable.

Superb writeup. One note; a good compromise between entertainment & into and situational awareness might be a single earbud with the radio set to mono. You'll get all the content while still retaining the ability to focus on outside sounds.

Again, I commend you on "letting rubber meet the road" and trying out your GHB. Many guys will "wargame" their pack but never try it until they need it. It was wise to give it a trial run.

nice job... I really like your introspection and analysis, and your model has given me (and others)thought for concern.... a comment for those that might live in areas with a little higher heat index...my 72hr bag is a Blackhawk with 100oz internal hydration bladder I picked up off the prize table at Ft Bragg. The drinking tube makes it a lot easier to keep hydrated if you don't want to stop to remove the pack... my external water bottles..SweetWater filter bottle with nested cup, and stainless 1/2 liter as you observed are also difficult to reach.. regards Les

With all the usual disclaimers, the superfeet insoles really work for me and make a significant difference to my feet, legs and back. While I'm sure they don't work for everyone as we are all different --they might be worth a try. I've used them for several years and at least in the past they've offered a 30 day money back guarantee.

http://www.superfeet.com/superfeet-difference/

I totally agree with Teslinhiker's choice of footgear - low cuts are much preferable to high top leather shoes. Their lighter weight will significantly increase the distance you can hike, as well as your comfort. I would recommend after market insoles, like Superfeet or Spenco (my preference), especially on concrete surfaces.

I know your circumstances apparently rule out using a bicycle, but this may not be the case for others. They should consider that while 20 miles is a long day's walk, it is an easy two hour bike ride. I can consistently average ten mph with a fully loaded touring bike, covering seventy to eighty miles a day, carrying enough gear to remain self sufficient for days at a time. If equipping for a GBH situation, the load could be decreased and bike durability enhanced to deal with the complications preset in a post earthquake situation.

I also live in earthquake country, but my part time job is only five miles away. I usually commute on my touring bike, and I always have what is required to walk the distance if necessary.

Congratulations on being proactive about this situation.

I don't know as high tops seem to give me more support. I'd use a hiking boot rather than a backpacking boot. And in the PNW at least 3 seasons of the year the high tops are going to probably keep your feet drier. Even if you are lucky to have a dry day, which can be far and few between around here, with a major earthquake there undoubtedly will be broken water mains (and probably worse) with runoff to navigate through and around. Fall through spring I'd probably include a pair of gaiters as well.

High tops do seem to offer more support (which is very often at debate) The problem with high top boots (whether you classify them as hiking or backpacking boots, it doesn't matter) is the weight of them. It has been proven by numerous studies that the heavier weight of the boot (which the OP has stated he wears heavy boots) makes a huge difference when you count the number of average steps per mile a person makes. The average is around 2000 steps on flat easy ground. So taking that number and multiplying it by 3 lbs for an average heavy boot is 2000 x 3= 6000 lbs of weight lifted by your legs and feet. Compare this to hiking shoes that only weigh 1.4 lbs: 2000 steps x 1.4 = 2800 lbs.

In one mile that is 1/3 less the weight and may not seem impressive, however in the course of 20 miles, the numbers are even more dramatic: 2000 steps x 20 miles x 3 lbs = 120,000 lbs compared to 2000 steps x 20 miles x 1.4 lbs = 56000 lbs of weight lifted. For any person who is even slightly out of walking/physical shape and carrying a 20 lb+ GHB, these are big differences which could be the deciding factor in you getting home before your legs and feet call it a day, especially on concrete.

If your trek home stretches into an overnight one and you stop and sleep somewhere, I can guarantee the next morning, your feet and legs are going to be hurting and you will have a rough few hours until you make it home.

As for the broken water mains flooding the street, I don't think there are very many (if any) mains big enough that would cause enough flooding to completely obiberate a street in deep enough water that I would be worried about. Also these types of breaks are very localized, meaning if you see the water flowing due a mains break in one block and flooding the street in a few inches of water, chances are that the next block over, there would be no flooding as all the water pressure is being released in the area of the break.

After my experience on the test hike, I am definitely going to research footwear more designed for urban environments. Due to my concerns about post-earthquake debris (glass, rebar, etc), I will still want something made of leather instead of nylon. Will also want something that fully encloses the foot. It looks like the footwear you showed had holes cut in the sides, possibly for breath-ability or weight.

I also want a high-top boot. I have badly twisted both of my ankles over the years and the high tops feel much more stable to me, especially in rough terrain (like a downtown post-earthquake debris field).

Thanks. It was the write-up of others that helped me get going with my own plans and I thought I would return the favor. Pass-it-forward as it were.



Situational awareness is something I really need to work on. Like probably much of the population I go through my normal day without truly paying much attention to what's around me. It is easy to become lax when nothing ever happens. (I may have led a relatively charmed life in this respect). With this as my habitual state of awareness, I found it really hard to shift gears into a heightened state of awareness on this hike. It certainly didn't help that everything was actually normal anyway. As I said, something I need to think more about.

Using a single ear-bud is a good suggestion. On the other hand, I had just finished deciding I didn't need the earbuds because my Coby one-piece headphones had worked so well. Back the decision drawing board I guess.

The Coby CV123 headphones I use are a one piece behind the head type. For me they are comfortable and fairly rugged (no foam ear cups to wear out, no thin plastic joints to get broken or crushed). The one-piece design means they stay on and don't work there way out over time. Also the behind the head design doesn't interfere with hats. A previous pair I purchased about 5 years ago are still going strong. Coby is one of those very bottom tier electronics companies that I generally stay away from. These headphones are the exception. I doubt everyone would like them, but they work well for me.

Thanks for the suggestion on better insoles. I'll take a look for them. I'll admit the superfeet website seems a little extreme in their claims, but that doesn't mean they can't have an excellent product that would work really well for me.

My BOB is a 3ltr hydration pack as well. I do like the convenience a hydration pack offers. For a GHB, I made several compromises between size, weight, price, and features. Built-in hydration lost out in this case, but it may be worth re-visiting in the future. Also, my current GHB is so packed, there is not really any room for an add-on hydration bag. Maybe another reason to "lighten up".

As I stated previously, I prefer a high-top boot due to past ankle injuries. It is possible that it is all psychological, but I feel much more stable in a high-top over a low-top. I normally play volleyball in a high-top court shoe. Every once in a while I forget them and use a low-cut pair and I really notice a difference.



The bicycle is definitely the way to go. Just wish I had a way to keep one at work. All the worst case scenarios I have been running through my head generally rule out a bicycle as well. However, I need to keep reminding myself that these are the "worst-case" scenarios and "better-case" scenarios are possible/probable and I need to plan for them as well.

I'm with you that the high-tops feel like they offer much more support for me as well. I'm less sure about the extra inch or two of height will make a great deal of difference in places where you need to get through water. Dealing with water is another reason not to have breathing holes in the sides of your shoes though. Still prefer the high-tops though!

The gaitors are a great idea! Tend to think of those in terms of snow, but I can see them providing additional lower leg protection as well as helping keep dust, dirt, gravel, etc. out of your boots. Wonder how much a pair weigh...

I fully believe the science of what you are saying about weight on the feet. However, in my case, I think I'll take the known psychological and protective benefits over the science. Extending the science to the ridiculous, a simple pair of flip-flops would be far better than the light hiking shoe. Your point about the affects of weight are well taken though. While I will stick with my high-top, that doesn't mean I can't look for the lightest one possible that still offers the protective qualities I want.

BTW. The pair of hiking boots I have been using with my GHB weigh in at 2lbs 1oz. I selected this particular boot simply because it was relatively cheap and seemed to fit. As a GHB boot, it is basically for one time use as it will be stored permanently at the office. (though, as somebody else pointed out, wearing it every once in a while will help keep both my feet and the boot fitted better).



I agree with you that when it comes to getting through water, where and how you decide to cross makes a far greater difference then whether you wear a high or low top boot. The high top would offer marginally more protection, but not enough to be a deciding difference between a low and high top.

6.8 oz on these

http://www.outdoorresearch.com/site/m_s_rocky_mtn_high_gaiters.html

I have actually been thinking about your GHB thread the last few days and have some extra thoughts on that: Essentially what you are doing is planning for a three day hiking/camping trip, with additional considerations. What I was going to suggest is that (if you have the time) is to start hiking for recreation, with some occasional overnighters. Use your intended GHB load. You are now shaking out your plans to see what actually works and what doesn't, plus getting into better shape, plus just getting outdoors away from the rat race. You have taken a good step with this trial run.

A few thoughts on this thread: good idea keeping some gear on you separate from your pack, in case of separation for whatever reason.

Two trekking poles is better than one in most situations. If for whatever reason you have to get rid of one, just ditch it. You already came to that conclusion, I think.

Soap: There are numerous soaps and multi-use cleaners marketed to the backpacking crowd that are used for cleaning you, your hair, clothes, dishes, dog, whatever in cold, warm or salt water. Check out REI.

While you're at REI go find the "Shoe Guru" in the store. Based on experience I know that hiking on pavement will chew your feet to shreds, even if you are in shape and have good calluses. This, and "ankle support" are covered by haveing boots that actually fit correctly. High top shoes do not offer any extra ankle support if they don't fit correctly in the heel. Your foot will still roll if the heel isn't stabilized. High top or low top should not matter as long as it fits correctly. That being said I still recommend a higher top hiking shoe/boot for your purposes. They provide better rain protection with your rain pants pulled over the top (assuming you go with a waterproof version), and they provided better impact protection for your ankles. This is a consideration for getting out and through debris from an earthquake, flood waters that you may have to go through with nasties floating around, dog and snake bite protections, etc. Heavy duty, all leather, clodhopper hiking/mountaineering boots are probably overkill for your purposes and as someone else mentioned, save as much weight from your feet as you can. A midweight, hightop, waterproof hiker like those from Merrell and other makers should work fine, BUT GET IT FITTED CORRECTLY BY THE SHOE GURU. For extra fit/comfort/cushion REI will have numerous choices in replacable footbeds. Check again with the foot guru.

Water supply is a personal issue with most people. I have found I like the convenience of the hydration bladder, and I drink a lot more with them than from a bottle. This is a good thing, but YMMV. Having a separate small water bottle on your second kit is probably a good idea for the redundancy mentioned above.

Consider gaiters, also for protection/rain use. Good job. Get out there and keep "testing."

I would personally stick with the lightweight boots rather than the lightweight hiking shoes. The aftermath of an Earthquake may make downtown Seattle look like a more rubble strewn landscape that the top of the fairy hill of the Caledonians. Twisting an ankle in this scenario would be a bad thing to happen.

I personally would go with something like the Rockport Valverde II's or one of the Clarks Active Air boots which are just slightly heavier than the Brasher Supalites.

http://www.brasher.co.uk/catalogue/products/supalite-ii-gtx-r-supaiimn

2lbs 1oz is a pretty lightweight pair of boots.

The idea of being out walking (disaster or no disaster) with my ears plugged with music gives me the heebie-jeebies! Why would anyone want to do that?

Flying so high, with your head in the sky...

Sue

Look again at the photo I posted. Those are not holes in the side, they are just designs in the leather and yes they are 100% waterproof.

2lbs 1oz is light for a pair of boots. When you mentioned earlier you had heavy boots, the thought came to mind of boots in the upper 3 to 4 lb range.

Everyone has different ideas what they consider the most appropriate kit and footwear. However in all reality, when and if the time comes, the best kit and footwear may possibly be what you have with you on that day and it may not always be what you want it to be, but it should help you to get home safely...and in reality, thats all that matters.

So your boots are cheap and weigh only slightly more than 2 pounds (which is quite light). 'Nam boots or something similar?

There are probably much better boots for your purpose. When you walk any significant distance, your foot gear is your single most important piece of equipment (well, actually, your two most important pieces of equipment). I used to put big money into my hiking and climbing boots and shoes. Today, very comfortable and functional foot wear is available at relatively cheap prices, although they are not as durable as the items available years ago.

My outdoor experience has convinced me that the three items on which I will spend whatever is necessary to obtain appropriate gear are boots, backpack and bag (sleeping). Just about everything else can be improvised or worked around. Put care and thought into obtaining good items for your feet.

By the way, I am not at all convinced that high top shoes necessarily prevent sprains and other injuries when hiking. High tops definitely are worth it in a work environment as protection agains various dings and blunt trauma. Anyone know of any studies?

Here are some pictures of damage from the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually quake in 2001. Some of them show the debris, and at least one of the triggered mud slides from the quake. If Seattle gets hit with the big one, a person probably would want some sort of safety boot to get out of the downtown debris field.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/photogallery/quake/photo18.html

+1. Absolutely correct.

x3! Footwear is the one thing I will spend whatever it takes to be comfortable. If there's one lesson I've learned in life, there is nothing more miserable than having to walk around in an ill-fitting pair of shoes.



While I agree lighter is better when it comes to footwear, I'm similar to you in that I've never been comfortable in low top shoes due to weak ankles. Maybe it's psychological, but when it comes to something as personal as boots, it doesn't matter what the science is as long as you feel good in them. I've somewhat compromised on getting a lightweight mid top all leather dayhiking boot. The added feeling of stability (real or imagined) is worth the trade off in weight.

Another reason I don't like low cut trail runners is the constant irritation from having debris getting into the shoe. I do have gaiters that would probably solve the problem, but by the time you add the weight and trouble of the gaiters I may as well have worn a taller shoe to begin with.

When it comes to water crossings, I've found there's no difference between low vs. high. What are the chances of crossing water that is exactly between 3"-4" deep. In those situation either your feet are gonna get wet or they aren't. If crossing water is inevitable, I'd rather have a fast draining (non-goretex) shoe than a waterproof one.

Also, if you're going to get Superfeet or any other type of insoles, just know that those need to be broken in just like boots. The first time you use insoles it'll probably feel like something's wrong, but the pain goes away after about a week.

Hey great job man. I'm not going to jump on the shoe deal but want to impress the lesson you learned regarding water and reaching it. This is something that probably a couple dozen of us realized when you wrote it and should have mentioned before hand.

First, for two hours even in the rain, you did not drink nearly enough and in a SHTF situation your adrenaline will be much higher. You mentioned only drinking 16oz. Got to do better. Whether that be by moving Nalgene bottles around or using a hydration reservoir.

I also clip my bottles to the pack, as I have lost them on the trail. On a couple of my packs its pretty easy to reach and unclip with the pack on my back. On a few others I dummy cord the bottle with a couple feet of 550 cord so even if it falls out it drags behind to I figure it out.

Rather than use a water bladder system I just attach a Smartube to some Tatonka Stainless Steel water bottles held in side pockets of my day pack. Sigg Neoprene Covers for the bottles help with the friction holding them in the side pockets reasonably securely. The stainless internal steel walls of the bottle also help with the sterilisation of the water when giving the water a blast with a Steripen.

http://www.bluedesert.co.il/

Yeah, I definitely need to drink more water. As I am sure most of you know. In a strenuous situation, if you wait until you are thirsty to drink, it is too late. Between a smaller pack and being overweight, I can't really reach the water bottles that are located in the side pockets of my pack. This is where the small 16oz bottle at my waist is working well for me.

What I need to do is develop a rhythm to my water intake. Back in my youth when I did a lot bicycling, I set up a countdown timer on my watch. It was set to go off every 20 min. That would be my reminder to take a drink of water. After I had done that long enough, I found I had developed a rhythm to it and didn't need the alarm any longer.

If I work on developing a rhythm like that now (and keep it practiced), then I won't need something like the alarm if my GHB really comes into play. Having an alarm go off would not be good for keeping a low profile.

Other methods, like counting steps, can also be used to aid in drinking enough water, but in the past I have found that mentally counting steps reduces my situational awareness. (often the counting became fairly automatic, but, when that happens, I found I often keep right on counting long past my target number.)

While the hydration pack would be a better solution, the pack I have now is what I have already spent the money on. As stated previously, there really isn't room for an add-on bladder in the pack now. In the future I may replace the pack and would get hydration then, but funds are limited and this is the pack I have now.

Filling the 16oz from the 32os bottles periodically will work pretty well for now. Besides, when the 16oz bottle is empty, that is a good sign that I should stop and take a break anyway. Stopping to fill the 16oz from the 32oz will make that happen automatically.



I fully agree on securing the water bottles. There was bottled water in a side pocket of my work backpack. One day it fell out somewhere between work and home and I never realized it until the next day. Can't take any chances on something like that in an emergency situation. For this pack, I used small utility carabiners to clip the Nalgene bottles to a pack tightener strap. The waist pack comes with the standard elastic bungee holder.

The idea of using paracord to secure the bottle is a great one. Especially if it is on several feet of it. That insures that not only is it not lost if it falls out, but you can't accidentally leave it behind and you can't forget to secure it either. I'm beginning to think of paracord as the survivalist's duct tape. The uses are virtually infinite. Thanks for the suggestion.

no problemo.