(1) Hiker Jim said "Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day.". Well Jim, there are a few people I know who have done this... thought most were typically doing their 200+ miles as an ultra-marathon with support stations rather than as a more traditional hike. There are plenty of ultralighters who do 30-40 miles / day for an extended period of time. Several have done one of the long trails likes the PCT with an average speed on ~30 miles / day which includes rest days and stopping to resupply. These folks do hit 50 miles on some of their longer / faster days. Personally, I won't go this fast because I doubt I am capable of that rate of travel, but also because I found that I like 15-20 miles in a day. More than that seems rushed.
Well, then I stand corrected.
Still, I think even 30 mile days are fairly rare (in backpacking, not talking about Ultras here), particularly as an average. Yes, I have heard of "Flyin' Brian," the man who did the PCT, AT, and CDT all in one season. (Amazing!) I think my point in saying, "Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day," was more to bring hiking mileages into a more realistic range. A lot of non hikers don't know that a 10 mile hike is a pretty good hike with 40 - 50 lbs on one's back. If you're routinely doing 15 - 20 mile days, my hat's off to you. Anything over 15 in a day with an overnight pack is an accomplishment in my book. The ultralight thing seems to be paying off for you.
Now to general issues.... There has been a lot of misconceptions about ultralight backpackers on this thread. Sure, there are some wildly irresponsible ultralighters who don’t bring what they need and might really be putting their lives as risk… but this is rare, and I think it has nothing to do with “ultralighting”. It has to do with some people being stupid… hence things like the Darwin awards. Several times I have helps ill-equipped people get out of the back country. It's never been an ultralighter. It has been heavy-weight packers who exceeded their ability to cope (and didn't plan well), or folks who hiked in 10 miles with a cooler filled with beer and potato chips, and a blanket over their shoulder, and realized they were in trouble as night started to fall.
Definitely. The people who are typically the biggest problem are the ones who don't know what they're doing at all. This summer, I ran into a ~50 y.o. woman taking her first backpack. She was at about 11,000 ft. and had just come down from 12,500. That's a heck of a beginner's hike! She was an REI employee, had bought a bunch of stuff, put it in a big pack, and off she went. She was in really bad shape, stumbling and on the point of collapse. My friend and I split up her load and walked her down to her campsite. We thought her pack was really heavy and both of us are 6' tall, experienced hikers.
First, I would like to remind everyone that life is risky. Complete safety is an illusion, and even if it wasn't, it would be so bore that I wouldn't want it. Life involves risks, what is important is to balance the risk/reward tradeoff. Some ultralighters might be willing to accept a bit more risk to achieve their goals than people on this thread are comfortable with... but I think the risks they are taking is actually smaller than the risks they take crossing a busy street in the city.
I think I'd agree with you there. Each person has to make his/her own assessment. I feel uncomfortable with a blanket statement like, "anyone who goes out without a fixed blade knife is an idiot." Everyone needs to come to terms with their own risk assesment and response.
All the ultralighters I know are extremely thoughtful individuals who are aware, typically based on extensive experience...
Yeah, it's not the experienced guys like you that I worry about. You guys know what's what, how to improvise, etc. My main criticism of the Backpacker Magazine article is that there was
no discussion of the pros and cons, what the trade offs are in carrying lighter gear, not carrying maps or water, etc. The article was presented as though risk wasn't an issue. My fear is that people new to backpacking will read articles like this, head out without really knowing what they need, and, like the woman I mentioned above, get themselves into real trouble. I think BP Magazine could do a better job.
Third, just because an ultralighter isn't bring enough stuff for YOU to feel comfortable doesn't means that they are uncomfortable. I like my comfort. I spend most of my time on my feet hiking. Typically the only thing I do in camp is sleep. So for me, comfort is mostly about the hiking... less stuff is more comfort. In camp, comfort is about being warm, dry, and getting a good night sleep. For me, a tarp, down quilt, and on most trips and insulated air mattress provides that and weights less than 3lbs.
Well, with a tarp only,
how does one prevent one's down quilt
from becoming wet in a serious rain storm. Wet down = misery; I say that from hard experience. I'm asking this seriously; that question was not intended as criticism. I was in a T-Storm like you wouldn't believe at 11,000+ feet this summer. Hail pelting so hard I drew my arms in around my chest instead of using trekking poles because it just hurt too much to have my arms horizontal. When I got back to camp (we had been on a peak bagging side trip), the rain had been so intense that mud was splashed 3/4 of the way up the rain fly. Inside? Our bags were bone try (THANK, GOD!). In an open ended tarp, would not a quilt become sodden?
Fourth, my experience with survival, first aid, staying safe, etc... is that the most important item is your brain. I have seem people with a pile of stuff get themselves in a world of hurt because they didn't think. I have seen people with what I thought too little stuff do better than anyone else when facing a challenging situation. At it's core, ultralight is about using knowledge, techniques, and experience to leave stuff behind that isn't needed.
I heartily agree. All the gear in the world won't help you if you lose your head or panic. Still, there's a balance to be had. Drop a man in the middle of a snowy forest in only his street clothes, and he's going to be in trouble (well, maybe if he's a smoker he'd have a lighter and could start a fire). Absolutely, the clever, those with ingenuity, those who stay cool are the ones who survive, but I'm going to suggest that a certain basic minimum of gear is equally important.
So how does this all work out? Let me give one small example. I have been on several trips where people were sure I didn't have enough clothing, and worse, I had what they though was a completely inadequate 1lb down quilt to sleep under. They were sure I was going to be cold. They were wrong. Why? First, I have learned that I run a bit hotter than some people, but more to the point, I had learned through careful observations what I need to start warm and comfortable. Like maybe people who switch to an ultralight style, I started out carefully. I would commit myself to use what I thought was the right "ultralight" mix of clothing, but I brought a drybag with "emergency" clothing that I would take out if I moved from uncomfortable to "at risk". I was willing to be chilled so I would know what MY comfort range was given physical environment, clothing, and my physiological condition. [One of the things I learned was not eating enough of being really tired meant I needed more insulation.] If you don't push into uncomfortable you don't really know what your limits are. If you are unwilling to stay uncomfortable for a while you won't learn how quickly you acclimatize (some people takes weeks, others days). After carefully monitoring my comfort, conditions, and gear, I have dialed in exactly what I need to be comfortable for a given set of conditions including a safety margin which takes into consideration the variance a specific location is likely to have.
Yes, and that's just the kind of experimentation that makes me
not worry about guys like you. I'm much more worried about the yahoos who go down to K mart, get some cheap crap, and head out into the woods in blue jeans and a cotton T shirt. Them and perhaps a yuppie who wants to get into backpacking, goes and buys the latest gear and goes out with no real idea of what he or she is doing. Giving advice in a magazine that one can go out into the woods without a map with out a word of caution makes me very uncomfortable. A simple admonition to the effect of, "don't try this until after you've been out a few times and are comfortable in the back country," would be a lot more responsible to my view.
This didn't happen over night. It involved a fair amount of research, experience, and experimentation.
Yeah, I've spent a few
cold nights out there when trying something new. Sometimes it really is "no pain, no gain."
To me it's worth it. In my overly prepared days I carried a 60lb pack and I found 10 mile / day trips exhausting and painful, but worth it because of the places I got to see. These days I am carrying a 10-30lb pack depending on conditions and length of trip, can easy hiking 20 miles in a day without feeling fatigued. One of my notes on this can be found linked into
http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/20 miles in a day with out feeling fatigued is quite an acheivement.
Previous Topic
Index
