OK-- I should never underestimate your capacity to tweak those custom goodies.

Brashers
RBH LW
40 Below custom wonder overboots

Yep.

Ryan writes:

>> the forty below overboots were GREAT with snowshoes HINT HINT.

Ok, guys. This is SUL with a high skills emphasis, right? No doubt that overboots would be plush, but unless Ryan wears them all the time while hiking, we'd have to add them to our "carried" weight, totally blowing our base weight.

I want Ryan to come back with all his toes (really!), but is there a lighter, more elegant solution that will still keep his feet cozy in the conditions discussed? Any out-of-the-box suggestions?

>> Ok, guys. This is SUL...

Mike:

Brasher Boots: 32 oz
Overboots: 16 oz
RBH Socks: 5 oz
Wool sock liners: 1 oz

Total footwear: 54 oz (3 lb 6 oz)

Which is about the weight of the summer classic backpacking boot: La Sportiva Makalu.

Only this equivalent weight system is being taken to subzero temperatures.

This is a skills exercise, for sure, but it's also extremely useful to highlight what you can do successfully for so little weight.

And, I'm not really sure what skill there is in using winter footwear. Put it on in the morning and take it off at night.

The only way I could see to go lighter, and I'm game with that, which would require more attention, is to replace the brashers with some 1.5 lb trail runners...this option would require a little more attention paid to where you walk (inability to traverse sidehills as well, and mixed snow/rock would be tough without also carrying a full gaiter and using waterproof shoes.

Ryan writes:

>> Total footwear: 54 oz (3 lb 6 oz)

>> Which is about the weight of the summer classic backpacking boot: La Sportiva Makalu.

Ok. I'll buy it. It's light. It's warm. It's flexible.

What about the pack weight issue? Will you *always* be wearing the overboots?

>> And, I'm not really sure what skill there is in using winter footwear. Put it on in the morning and take it off at night.

Just off-the-cuff: how about special techniques for keeping your feet warm with less insulated footwear; relying on snowshoes to keep the footwear out of the snow; maybe sleeping in the boots...

Best Regards,

-Mike

Edited by MikeMartin on 10/22/2005 12:32:45 MDT.

prosthetic feet? --of course Ryan will have to undergo some modding.

seriously Michael, the Brashers are already a very light boot for this undertaking and coupled with a lighter sock (albeit VBL)...
Perhaps the overboots could be used with trailrunners instead (which the guy said was possible).
I think overboots would be mostly worn ( as much as the snowshoes, anyway. So, should not count as baseweight. Maybe if RJ is starving he can eat them (thus counting as consumable).
Nix the trailrunners--I stick w/ original proposal (and add minimalist sock liners). I want to see a mixed terrain trip.

Edited by kdesign on 10/22/2005 12:36:19 MDT.

>> What about pack weight when you're not wearing the overboots?

I think 'pack weight' in general is overrated as a metric of your skill/ultralight prowess. I always look at someones FSO. It's pretty easy to "pad the stats" with an ultralight pack by carrying and wearing a bunch of stuff, putting it in pockets, etc.

Ryan writes:

>> I think 'pack weight' in general is overrated as a metric of your skill/ultralight prowess. I always look at someones FSO. It's pretty easy to "pad the stats" with an ultralight pack by carrying and wearing a bunch of stuff, putting it in pockets, etc.

I completely agree. It's just that this exercise started with a 5lb base weight limit. Maybe we should change the criteria to (uh, I dunno) 10 or 11 lbs FSO weight (w/o consumables), or more if we include snowshoes and poles. [comments?]

Edited by MikeMartin on 11/05/2005 19:39:36 MST.

I am really glad to see so much thought going into Rayn's footwear. I am laboring over what footwear I want/need for my December Smokies (GSMNP) South hike. I don't expect "0" temperatures but could easly see 20 to 60 degrees with anything from rain, mud, snow and ice.

I read Ryan's review of the Brasher's but where can you buy them on this side of the ocean? Also at at 31.5oz for a size 8.5 - I need an 11.5 and expect that would be over the 2.1 pounds each of my current Danner Boots. I truly love my heavy Danners and have been wearing this model for about 12 years. My wants are for a trail runner, with what ever I need on them or in them as long as the total weight is well under the 2.1 pounds each of my current 10" - water proof very comfortable Danners. My current Danners are insulated also but I would get my next pair without the insulation and go for one of the RBH Designs footwear items.

My current trail runner is a TNF Ultra 102. I have had several pairs of this model and they are OK.

Edited by bfornshell on 10/22/2005 15:56:11 MDT.

Bill writes:

>> Also at at 31.5oz for a size 8.5 - I need an 11.5 and expect that would be over the 2.1 pounds each of my current Danner Boots.

Bill: that 31.5 oz for the Brashers - that's for the pair, not each...

You are correct, how did I miss that little detail. Going back to your review I see that you stated that twice.

OK, so do I want to try the RBH Insulator Boot Liner at (men's size 10 - 5.6oz per pair) or their Vapor Barrier Sock at - no weight given? I can send them an email and ask about the weight.

I would wait till I get the RBH item and see how it feels in my current trail runner and if I needed a larger pair get a new pair of trail runner. My current size 11 - TNF Ultra 102's(non-gore-tex) weigh 14oz each or 28oz per pair. I like the 102's well enough to buy another pair but I am not in love with them and I might try a different shoe. The "cons" you list for the Brasher's keep me from buying them as most of my hiking is in warm to hot weather.
Thanks

Bill, although there is no U.S. distribution for Brashers at the moment, they are available from a number of UK retailers who will ship stateside. My experience with getting stuff from the Brits is that the International Postage cost ( about 15 -30 dollar range) will offset the VAT costs (that we don't have to pay. Of course boot fitting issues can be an issue. Return is an issue.

Oh, I see it's a moot point.

Edited by kdesign on 10/22/2005 17:46:39 MDT.

You are correct, but they may have other models than the one Ryan did the review of. One of my other hobbies is doing some real detailing of standard plastic model airplane kits. Most of the add-on detail kits I buy from a company in the UK. With a credit card it has gotten really easy to buy stuff from everywhere to include the UK. Japan has gotten much better also in the last few years. From the UK I get most orders in less than 2 weeks. Sometime as fast as 5 working days.

My concern for shoes or boots would be the sizing question.

Edited by bfornshell on 10/22/2005 18:25:26 MDT.

I suspect that the spec. has changed since Ryan bought his Brasher Supalite GTX boots. On their website they now quote the weight for a pair of UK size 9 (US size 9 1/2) as 1136gms (40 oz).

My US size 8 1/2 pair of the non-goretex version of Supalites weighs 1048gms (37 ozs). To my mind they are better than the GTX version in that they are cooler in warmer weather, and dry out sooner when soaked. I can wear sealskin socks if necessary. Unfortunately this version seems to have been discontinued.

Update, dear readers. So far we have a suggested base weight list ( you will have to backtrack up this thread), some suggestions for worn clothing and a footwear ensemble.

Snowshoes are the suggested means of locomotion. There is some discussion about not being so focused on base weight and more on full skinout weight (FSO).

Gentle readers---Weigh in, tear it apart, whatever.

There is some discussion about not being so focused on base weight and more on full skinout weight (FSO).

Absolutely! My own feeling is that FSO wt. PLUS wt. of consumables per day is the only measure worth discussing. Any partial measure leaves room to be arbitrary and define an object as not part of base wt. rather than actually leaving it at home. Much like our government defining expenditures as "out of budget"

However, in Ryan's case I'd cut him slack and not weigh his camera and note taking gear ... since that's there only for the purpose of recording the outcomes ... but only if he doesn't use those objects as a pillow, foot stool or other camp gadget.

Edited by jcolten on 10/24/2005 12:42:17 MDT.

I like the direction the FSO thought is going. But, ultimately even then I would like it more on a weighted basis depending on where the item is used. I mean if you could drop the weight of snowshoe/footwear combo even more I would think that would be even a greater offset than adding a few pounds to his base load. Although, technically, the FSO might be higher. And let's face the weight of the clothes you are wearing are generally less of a strain than what you are carrying. Their should be some weighted factor for this as well.

Ultimately, I must admit, I want to see the running shoe/overboot combo. This really intrigues me.

Anon #10

I don't want to see the running shoe/overboot combo,particularly. It just limits you to more moderate terrain and I want to see this trip hit more varied ground. We don't want to bore the Doctor.

I wonder about the smallish (for Winter) cookpot-- .75 liter Anti Gravity that is currently on the list -- if it is a bit small for purposes of effectively melting the quantities of snow one needs for drinking as well as for cooking. Winter is the time I'm more apt to get dehydrated. Any thoughts? Is there a Liter pot of similar weight (3.8 oz. or less) that is in the market or can be made?

Edited by kdesign on 10/25/2005 20:49:15 MDT.

OK, based on the feedback from footwear, this is what I'll bring, erring on the side of ... less conservative and lighter weight. I grabbed XCR shoes in case the overboots needed to be ditched for rock scrambling. For an emergency "gaiter" I'll sew a stirrup strap into my pants cuff.

RYAN'S FOOTWEAR

Worn:

Yes, sealed or not---why the Susitna 2's ( which were not on your original list of footwear options)? Will they provide enough support for sidehill traverses?And are you reconciled to snowshoes? I did think we were choosing your gear? :-)>

Shelter/sleep system is fine, not a conservative selection, either--it will be interesting to see what clothes combo will get selected to round this system off--Hope you can dig out a snowcave each night. It's a wrap.

next category?

Edited by kdesign on 10/25/2005 21:17:46 MDT.

>> Yes, sealed or not---why the Susitna 2's

XCR shoes give me some flexibility for other terrain. The Susitna's fit me OK. They are very flexible. There is some thought that maximum flexibility in winter footwear results in warmer feet (the mukluk theory) due to better circulation.

Not much talk of skis til now, so snowshoes, or no snowshoes, were assumed. Either way, I guess that decision does need to be made. I already have the lightest snowshoes available: Northern Lites Elites. Snowshoes will get me into the backcountry. No snowshoes will probably find me within sight of the car ;) If there are no objections, I'll add the Elites to the list.

>> Will they provide enough support for sidehill traverses?

Not as much as the Brashers. This will definitely force me to pick my route and navigate the terrain.

>> I did think we were choosing your gear? :-)>

Just trying to keep things moving along. We could spend two months on footwear, I think. The idea here is to bring a system that is truly ultralight and not just "lightweight but conservative", and to select gear that demands attention to technique to really make it shine in these conditions (not just make it "work").