Learning from the ultralite backpackers

[Emma]

Well as usual with footwear I think we're all agreed that it rather depends on the terrain.
I admit I have only been to Scotland once and have spent the rest of my life in the South Downs. In the South Downs I am more than happy to wear trainers, but in Scotland I was glad I took boots.
Yes, I love feeling the ground as I walk, and you don't get that with boots, but then with boots you do get deep tread which is pretty handy for mud, and hurt less when wedged in a gap in rocks...

 

[Roving Rich]

I wear boots with plenty of ankle support, either Ex German army paraboots - fantastic hard wearing boots, now on their third set of soles, they are the easiest boots to get on and off, with kinda tube eyelets and a couple of strategically placed hooks. The others are Salomon boots - alot lighter, 10 times the price and effectively disposable - you cannot resole them. But for any distance light boots make a real difference. Ray Jardine used resupply boxes sent to post offices along his route to replace the trainers he had knackered over the last leg....
Anyway to get back to the plot - yes there are lessons to be learned from the lightweight guys. I much prefer a tarp to a tent for bushcraft - I feel more intouch with the surroundings, - i can see and hear more, aswell as having a fire.
Ray Jardine suggests a little nylon pouch for putting your odds and ends in inside the pack - Brilliant - and weighs nothing removes the need for umpteen pockets on your pack. He does recommend external mesh pockets for easy access, one for water on for fuel. If either leak, they drain rather than contaminate your pack.
Finally he recommends customising your kit, or making your own - bushcraft if ever i heard it.
Cheers
Rich

 

[wentworth]

Mhhm Jason1... we jogger-wearers are all a bunch of sissy hikers! what do we know about REAL walking!?
All I can say is what I have experience with. If I cannot pull my joggers off my feet with my hands when they're done up properly, I fail to see how terrain or bog could. I love doing creek walks, where you are literally up to your waist for hours at a time. You encounter bog, mud, sand and hidden drops, none of which has managed to steal my joggers.
I wish I could justify wearing my Saloman boots, as they cost a fortune, and it seems like a waste to have bought them and not given them much use, but I just find that joggers do the job better. Even the boot maker's persuasive marketing hasn't been enough to make me go back to them...
Each to his own (slightly insulting opinions included)

 

[Mr Cissey]

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.
.

Too many years ago I walked a large part of the Pennine Way (Edale to Alston) with the Army as adventurous training. One of the lads wore trainers the whole distance and as I recall it ****** down for most of the time (including Kinder Scout) and yet his trainers did not come off nor were his feet cut to shreds. Were they perhaps magic trainers?

On a similar note a friend of mine regularly went out with his University hiking club across Dartmoor; the difference between them and him being they wore expensive hiking boots and he wore his wellingtons. Strangely enough he did not die of some foot ailment.

 

[arctic hobo]

I think we need to tone this discussion down a bit folks. We all seem to be saying "each to their own" and not meaning it. It's a lovely British tradition of getting the last word that just doesn't belong in a (reasoned!) discussion of footwear.
Some of us prefer trainers, others boots. At the moment, boots remain more popular in the UK for walking, and are used by most armed forces. They are used exclusively by mixed climbers and ice climbers. Trainers are used mostly in running, but are becoming more popular in walking, most notably in the USA. This may or may not be to do with the drier climate they experience. We all have differing views and I daresay we all believe our own to be correct. Personally I like high quality heavy leather boots, which I use for hiking, mixed climbing, ice climbing, traverses and glacier travel.
Let's leave it there shall we? This thread is meant to be about ultralight backpacking, not footwear
Cheers
Chris

 

[Wayne]

I think the point is that carrying less on your back and still wearing heavy boots with a full steel shank that can accept step in crampons is not always desirable. Are people choosing footware because it is the most suitable to the likely terrain and conditions or because tradition says when on the hill one wears boots?

If your trip means kicking lots of steps and walking on scree then a good boot is probably going to save you a few bruised toes. I have been amazed when on the hill, people have walked by wearing jeans and trainers when conditions were touch and go.

Carrying less and moving faster on the hill is often safer than carrying enough kit for every eventuality. At the end of the day we all assess what kit and risks we are prepared to take.

 

[Ravenn]

I'm a boot person, usually lightweight boots, but good ankle support.

I set a basic equipment weight and capicity limit, 40-45L. pack weighing less than 4lbs. a Sleeping bag (when actually carrying one" of a kilo or less. Tarp normally tent (less than 4.5 lbs) when necessary.
Basic FAK, 1 billy pot, mug and a spoon only for meals. Extra clothes?/ for three days.. whats the point except for sox, a fleece jacket and a shemgah for cooler temps.

 

[jason01]

I think the point is that carrying less on your back and still wearing heavy boots with a full steel shank that can accept step in crampons is not always desirable. Are people choosing footware because it is the most suitable to the likely terrain and conditions or because tradition says when on the hill one wears boots?

If your trip means kicking lots of steps and walking on scree then a good boot is probably going to save you a few bruised toes. I have been amazed when on the hill, people have walked by wearing jeans and trainers when conditions were touch and go.

Carrying less and moving faster on the hill is often safer than carrying enough kit for every eventuality. At the end of the day we all assess what kit and risks we are prepared to take.

Just to clarify what I wear, then I'll shut up I dont think I suggested wearing rigid boots for every occassion I wouldnt wear winter boots for summer walking any more than I'd wear trainers, heres what I wear....

Full on winter mountaineering - steel shank rigid leather boots weighing probably in excess of 3KG, great boots but they dont often come out to play these days

Mountaineering the rest of the year and any time I think it might be fairly rough going - semi flexible leather mountaineering boots with full rand, something Like Scarpa Mantas

Long distance walking, a pair of ancient, very flexible and past their best Scarpa SL's

Messing about in the woods - German para boots, the older style which are getting harder to find in good nick, dont like the newer padded ones as much

Like anything its a balance between safety and weight, if anything me and my old mountaineering mates always used to travel dangerously light in the hills, seeing how much Bushcrafters carry came as a shock to the system but we did at least always wear decent boots

Jason

Wishing I was on a hill rather than stressing about footwear in Birmingham

 

[Kirruth]

Personally I like to strike a balance between carrying lots of stuff and denuding the environment. I'm also a daughter of a mountain rescue man, so want to avoid getting them called out...

When I get it into my head to travel light, I carry four kilos worth of stuff (excluding food and water, and whatever seasonal clothes I am wearing):

Survival tin (compass, whistle, firesteel, tinder, fishing kit, sewing kit, snare wire, cash, SAK with saw)
Possibles pouch (mess tin, solid fuel stove, k/f/s, space blanket, matches, more matches, signal mirror)
FAK (plasters, analgesics, anti-diahorrea, blister kit, bandage, personal medications)
Personal care kit (toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, tissues, soap, sunscreen, lipsalve)
Spare socks
Pen-light torch + spare batteries
Mora knife
Billy
Mug + Brew kit
Water-bottle
Blanket
Poncho

The above fits into a daypack (though I'll use a three-day bag to carry the above with food,water and a change of clothes, or a full-size ruck to add a bivi, basha, sleeping bag and mat). Footwear varies

 

[Roving Rich]

Same here Ravenn, I use either a 35l or 40l rucksack, which really limits the amount of kit you can carry (deliberately). It means i can never get all the stuff i'd like to take, so forces me to leave unnessary stuff at home.
A light pack makes so much difference to being able to move comfortably in the wilds.
From what the outdoor shops say its a miracle our ancestors managed hunter gathering without gore tex,titanium, pocket stoves and GPS

Cheers
Rich

 

[Ravenn]

Same here Ravenn, I use either a 35l or 40l rucksack, which really limits the amount of kit you can carry (deliberately). It means i can never get all the stuff i'd like to take, so forces me to leave unnessary stuff at home.
A light pack makes so much difference to being able to move comfortably in the wilds.
From what the outdoor shops say its a miracle our ancestors managed hunter gathering without gore tex,titanium, pocket stoves and GPS

Cheers
Rich

When I used a bigger external (55-60L) frame pack, it always weighted a ton !
That same pack today would be much more managable .
The 35-40L internal frames are very trim to wear.The major thing with them is the construction of the internal frame/carrying system.
I'm still a fan of External frames, for more developed trail systems.

 

[Hoodoo]

From what the outdoor shops say its a miracle our ancestors managed hunter gathering without gore tex,titanium, pocket stoves and GPS

Yes, but the big difference is that our ancestors could kill and butcher any game they came across, trap and fish all they wanted, buid fires and use natural resources whenever and wherever they wanted. There is something to be said for treading lightly and carrying amenities. There are many many areas I've backpacked in where many "bushcraft" techniques are not permitted. If I restricted my outdoor travels to "bushcraft areas" only, I sure would have missed a lot. As it is, the older I get, the heavier my pack feels even though it's a lot lighter than it used to be. But things like titanium and silnylon help me a lot to get back into the wilds.

 

[Gail]

Being about 3 stone in weight myself I do struggle with the heavier packs and masses of stuff.

I have learned to economise with kit to the nth degree - I learn new tricks on every trip, and as of yet have not done without anything vital, nor gone cold or hungry - having a 45 litre pack means I HAVE to take only what is vital.