Learning from the ultralite backpackers

[Bob Hurley]

As I age (and the doctors keep removing parts of me) I realize that the only way I'm going to be able to enjoy the outdoors as I always have is to lighten my load. I already tend toward the "less kit" side, so I'm looking to lighten the things I usually carry rather than carry fewer things.

As a result I've been looking at a lot of ultralite backpacking sites on the web, and the lightness of the load these folks carry is amazing. I found out really quick that it's a hobby that can quickly become a money pit (aren't they all), but happily there are a lot of sites promoting inexpensive solutions.

Has anyone else tapped into this knowledge source to lighten their load?

 

[arctic hobo]

Yes, but found I was being sold very short jackets that didn't keep me dry at huge expense. Some things are worth it, others not.

 

[wentworth]

I have made a conscious effort to lighten my gear. The ballancing act is getting your gear to a weight you are comfortable to carry,and a level of camp comfort which will allow you to sleep. For instance, for two trips I did, I got my baseweight (gear w/o food and water) to around 3.1 kg. This was really, really light, and a joy to carry. But it meant that I was sleeping on a 1/2 blue foam mat which is a bit crappy.
So now I have bought myself a hennessy hammock, which has added over half a kg to my baseweight, but which has made me far more comfortable.

If you're really into lightening your gear, read Beyond Backpacking, by Ray Jardine. He's a little forceful and arrogant in his sentiments, but this book is where lots of the radical Ultralight ideas came from.

 

[Hoodoo]

Totally agree with you Bob. At least for backpacking. I've done quite a bit to lighten my load over the years, just out of necessity. Nowadays, I don't even take a stove, but cook with esbit. Cookware is titanium. Went back to a down sleeping bag over synthetic. But I have to admit, last year I went back to a tent over a tarp. I bought an MSR Hubba1 and for big wets and stiff winds, it's mucho better than a tarp and it doesn't weigh too much more than some. Sleeps warmer too which allows me to carry a lighter bag. I still carry a frame pack but I use one of the lightest ones out there, the Kelty 50th anniversary. Went to a lighter water purifier, silnylon for bags, etc. Just about every part of my gear gets scrutinized for weight. I don't go as light as Ray Jardine or some others out there but I don't do too bad. 35 lbs will get me through a good 5 day hike.

And if I want to practice my bushcraft while backpacking, for the most part all I need is a lightweight mora.

 

[jason01]

I was into backpacking and mountaineering before "bushcraft" though Im not too keen on all these labels as theres a fair bit of overlap and while I was never ultralight Im often surprised how much heavy kit a lot of bushcrafters seem happy to carry. I also prefer a small tent over other types of shelter, particularly with the tendency to wet weather over here, a small tent can be as light as a tarp with lines and a bivvi bag anyway, definately prefer a down bag for the obvious weight/volume saving and until very recently all of my "outdoors" clothing was synthetic. I think the short jackets are often derived from climbing designs were maximum movement/light weight is neccessary, a long jacket hampers leg movement, in the same way that tall thin bergens without side pockets are the norm in mountaineering but a pain in woods! An axe is something I can very rarely justify due to the weight and I can walk further into the wilderness without one! Maybe a lot of bushcrafters dont walk very far

 

[ChrisKavanaugh]

There was a fascinating book which sadly I lost and cannot recall the author. GERONIMO IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS OF VIETNAM. It was a historical comparison of the last Indian War campaign against the Apache and our then current war. Most telling were troops heavily equipped against a lightly geared, fast moving enemy who knew their country intimately in both conflicts. Of course this can be reversed by remembering a handfull of heavily armed Spartans who stood their ground and slaughtered the creme of ancient Persia's lightly armed men. We aren't in combat, though many look at any period outdoors as some potentiall misadventure fraught with peril and wind up looking like an astronaut on a spacewalk and just as dependant on the huge packs both wear. But nature isn't always a musical Camelot, " where the wind wisks away the leaves at night" either. Modern materials, and even better use of older ones has lightened the load considerably. The caveat is to remember nature hasn't changed her rules and there are times weight truly does equal performance.

 

[arctic hobo]

I guess for me I've always been happier to carry the extra weight and have everything I want - although I'm not a person who packs for every eventuality, I will often be walking with my climbing gear, which weighs a bit, and other things of a similar nature. With careful training distributed over the right muscles, I can keep up with the best of them even carrying half my weight. Part of it I guess is that I grew up carrying a lot, even at age 15 when your back is not supposed to have developed I carried 20kg+.
There remains however a great deal of sense in carrying lightweight gear. Even if you carry a lot like me it can mean you carry a lot but still have a lot of "weight-space" for extra food, which is always welcome. There are three lightweight camps I will never buy into however: a) the camp that promote lighter and lighter boots or even shoes, claiming a pound on the foot is five on the back. I appreciate however that this is mostly from the USA and Oz, as they aren't blessed with the regular dousings we are; b) lightweight clothes - thin, flimsy jackets and trousers that don't last because they are so thin, and are cut too short, and use Gore tex Paclite which I have found to be awful on the dozen or so occasions I've used it; c) lightweight climbing equipment - it's fine to have a set of ice screws made out of titanium, so long as that is the only difference. I would be suspicious of a climbing manufacturer deliberately claiming a weight target - for example you could make a set of rockcentrics light by hollowing the head. But in a narrow crack, with the sudden weight of a person falling they could cave in enough to fall out, or even crush completely.

 

[jason01]

Totally agree with you re no concession on boots, I prefer traditional heavyweight boots though theyre getting harder to find and cant for the life of me understand the popularity of the likes of Brashers might as well wear a pair of trainers for all the ankle support they give!

 

[arctic hobo]

Plus what good are trainers when it is wet? Nor do they last nearly as long..

 

[ChrisKavanaugh]

Somewhere in the ETS forum is a post about a boot made of Cape Buffalo in South Africa that is legendary. Over here we have Whites boots made for the timber, packer and other outdoor needs that are wonderfull traditional boots. I believe Shwert has a a pair of boots by another custom maker. the gtood stuff is still out there, just getting rarer and dearer. I just priced riding boots for my UP saddle. The things cost more than my saddle AND my horse's saleprice 17 years ago!

 

[brucemacdonald]

Plus what good are trainers when it is wet? Nor do they last nearly as long..

Ray Mears (yes him again ) mentions in "The Survival Handbook" that he used fell-running shoes as footwear for bushcraft. Lighter and quicker-drying than boots, he could carry two pairs, one being worn and one drying out. The cleats on the soles afford a good grip on most terrain. Mind you this was written in 1990 - he seems to have moved to wearing boots himself since then.

So the idea of trainers is not as silly as it sounds....

Best wishes

Bruce

 

[wentworth]

I wear joggers when out in the bush. They are Dunlop Volleys, which are basically a canvas tennis shoe. The soles are extremely fexible, which I like, because I can 'feel' the ground more when I walk, which gives me better stability off track. And they have amazing grip in the wet. They're the next best thing to being barefoot (which I'm not game to try).

And as to ankle support; If someone's ankles are so weak that they need some kind of brace so they can walk, then they do have problems. And if their ankles needed that kind of support, a boot with a bit of leather coming up your ankle is not going to support it.

I have fractured my ankle in sturdy boots. I have not in joggers.
Just my experiences.... others may differ.

 

[arctic hobo]

Ray Mears (yes him again ) mentions in "The Survival Handbook" that he used fell-running shoes as footwear for bushcraft. Lighter and quicker-drying than boots, he could carry two pairs, one being worn and one drying out. The cleats on the soles afford a good grip on most terrain. Mind you this was written in 1990 - he seems to have moved to wearing boots himself since then.

Sorry I should have clarified I meant hiking rather than bushcraft. For the evenings I always carry a pair of sandals - after a days walking, boots or trainers, your feet love the opportunity for some fresh air! They're also lighter than any other footwear to carry. I have to say that my feet have never been wet in my boots (Scarpa SL's or a pair of old Berghaus boots), perhaps because I have deliberately gone for the best, but they surpass any other footwear I've worn. If your boots let water in then maybe you might want to get some new ones - I have a pair of standard army boots that keep me dry standing in water up to the rim, and cost me a tenner.
Wentworth: Ankle support is not about supporting weak ankles, it's about supporting your foot so you can perform at your best. When you're very tired is when you really appreciate it - I have only ever walked 25mi/day in trainers before, perhaps you have done more and could correct me, but compared to boots my feet went through hell. But of course it's all personal preference
I guess it's also that in wet ground boots will do better - my experiences in the UK and Norway have certainly had their fair share of that! Whereas in Oz and the US you stay dry so it's OK to have lighter footwear.
Cheers
Chris

 

[jason01]

Most of my walking is over rough terrain, often in British mountains, up water gullies, over miles of peat hags etc, in those conditions with a decent sized pack wearing trainers is plain foolish, sorry but thats how it is and I guarantee you would be in a right mess at the end of such a day if you were wearing trainers but if you'd like to try I'd be happy to set a route and come along for the laughs

Personally I cant stand the things anyway, I dont own a single pair of trainers, nasty sweaty things, make your feet stink and dont last five minutes. If I were inclined to wear them I'm sure I could totally annihalate a pair in a day on the hills.

I also have strappy treck type sandals for wearing around camp and in the woods on easy terrain I tend to wear older style army boots.

Im sure its less of an issue in warmer climates and on easy terrain, but when youre tired with a pack on your back in the middle of nowhere its easy to turn an ankle, I'll take the support of decent boots every time.

 

[wentworth]

Hi Arctic Hobo,
In my experience, my feet do better with light shoes. You know that exhaustion you get when you're tired and youve been walking too long.... you start to roll your ankles because you can't coordinate any more? Well I find I get that far sooner when wearing boots, possibly due to the effort of lifting them on my feet all day. My feet are able to stave it off most of the day when wearing joggers.

You might like to see these couple of pages for interest:

http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Footwear.htm#Ankle

http://danny.oz.au/travel/dunlop_volley/index.html

the last one has some ppl talking about wearing these joggers to the summit of Kilimanjaro....
Each to his own I suppose....

 

[alick]

I'm more of a mind with the lightweight lads.

I've done heavy packs - 60lb+ backpacking in my teens, big boots and have had enough of it. Today with knackered knees I aim for a max pack weight of 30lb to achieve 35, far prefer lightweight fabric boots or the sort of technical trainers that scarpa and co. sell - they leak but for my trips wet feet won't hurt me.

I think it's each to their own but to me experience is about judging what you can get away with. Going light is great. If I take the risk of getting damp sometimes that's a fair trade for not having to sweat heaving extra kit around with me.

Lighter footwear definately makes me lighter on my feet so I make fewer mistakes. Personally I'd rather not crash than drive around in a tank for when I do - so to speak

All that said - if I was off for a fortnight backpacking around scotland or norway, I'd definately be digging out some more convenional kit.

Cheers

 

[Wayne]

Chris Townsend has back packed the PCT and the Continental Divide solo. He wears trainers and spors sandals. I used to do a lot of solo back packing and wore good trainers often. The only time i would wear boots was if i expected to encounter snow and ice. I now tend to wear mendl boots but i am now less fit and find i am not as good at stablising my ankles.

 

[Not Bob]

Just remember when reading Ray Jardine's book that he generally hikes on paths in a more benign climate than the soggy UK. Also his kit is tailored to help him to hike as far as possible each day and not to indulge in bushcrafting.

 

[jason01]

Ive walked the South West Coast Path, Offas Dyke, various sections of the Pennine way, all of the 3000ft+ summits in North Wales many times each, many of the Lake District peaks and a good few of the Munros in the North West of Scotland incl Liathach in winter, Ben Alligin, Beinn Eighe, Ben Hope, Ben Kilbreck, Suilven and Ben Nevis in winter, to name but a few. My offer stands, I reckon you guys would last about an hour on Kinder Scout in a pair of trainers and thats not even a particulrly gnarly place just a peat bog plateu, its soaking wet and the suction will pull your trainers off and have you bare foot in a couple of miles, thats without even getting onto rocky stuff that would cut your feet to shreds, in trainers you'll be a liability to yourselves but as long as you'll take that responsibility I'd be happy to come along for you to prove me wrong.

Gary/Leon/Jeremy....how far do you reckon they wouldve got on Islay its not even hilly there.

Will one of you take me up on my challenge?

TBH Im astounded at what I consider to be bad and positively dangerous advice being handed out here.

 

[mal]

LOWAS Best footware i have ever had.