Ryan wrote:
> I mean, you're right - the difference between 3 and 5 lb is pretty small.
> But, in reducing the weight of, say, a full on winter kit from 20 lb to 5 lb.

Agreed. If you assume perfect weather conditions, you can SUL quite happily today.
The challenge now is to figure out how to push this into poor weather conditions (lots of damp and wind) and then into snow conditions.
There's a long way to go yet in these areas, for both technology issues and for safety.

> The next step for the ultralight realm is the use of computers (like used to design sails) to design tent flys using Cuben-type fabrics and then the ultralight netting to produce a TartTent Contrail at sub 16 ounces. The greatest problem still surrounds the floor durability. I can forsee CAD/CAM for manufacturing.

I think the use of CAD is already happening. I have been designing tents for a number of years now, and they have all been done with CAD. That doesn't mean just using a computer sketch package to draw them: the designs are mathematical and parameter driven. I can't imagine that others have not been trying this out as well.

Btw, things like floor durability are two issues: how well you look after your gear (like clearing the tent site), and the trade-off you want to make between weight and durability. By way of example, my silnylon groundsheet has several small holes in it which have been patched. Even with the patches, it's a lot lighter than the older alternatives.

I get a lot of satisfaction out of playing with gear. But that's not the core of my interest.

I've been doing "this" (UL) for a long time. I did an unsupported circumnav of the Olympics in '88 with about 12 lb of gear. That was exciting to me. Even more exciting was leading a group of teenage Boy Scouts the next year on a trek of 100 miles in 5 days - with UL gear. It wasn't the gear - it was what I could do with it that was exciting.

I was as excited to put together my kit for my Arctic trek this spring as I was putting together my kit for my Olympic circumnav. Why? Because I was excited about the experience.

I've "dialed in my kit" at least a dozen times in the past few years! But that doesn't mean I have necessarily arrived. As I change context (e.g., Olympics to the Rockies to the Arctic to the AT to desert UT to...), my 'needs' for different gear systems don't change as much as my 'desire' to try new systems and make them work in the context.

My big thing right now that I'm excited about personally is taking UL gear into very cold (winter) and very wet conditions for extended periods of time, and (2) simplifying my kit so that I have as few items as possible.

Both of these are new contexts for me, and I get great reward in pursuing them, partly because of the challenge of trying out and learning to use different, interesting gear (like the Bushbuddy stove), and partly to see what limitations UL has as the envelope is pushed.

In that respect, I think UL always has and always will have a lot to offer on a personal level, but only if you desire to pursue it. If you're comfortable with your kit and tinkering with gear systems or learning how to use different systems just for the sake of learning is not your thing, that's ok.

But...

I think our "box" of experience and learning should bigger than one "UL" kit that we have assembled.

>Doug Frick used a term in another thread a few weeks ago that captured my attention -"hypermaterialism"


Just for the record, that was Dale Wambaugh in Hypermaterialism and Ultralight Gear [no problem]. As for me I'm pretty comfortable with my gear, although I'm slowly replacing items as I learn how my current LW gear works for me. BPL articles and the forum community are my primary source for learning about new gear that might be a better alternative. I appreciate that (and will continue to pay my membership fee for that benefit). I'd like to gradually move into UL territory, but with some basic comfort (sleeping is still important to me). BPL articles and forum posts have made a big difference in my winter gear list--it's now 10 pounds lighter than my 3-season gear list used to be, and it's warmer. That makes a huge difference on skis or snowshoes. But I like the non-gear content as well, technique as well as trip reports, since it gives me ideas to consider, or at least a short escape from work.

Edited by Otter on 11/14/2006 14:09:02 MST.

Apologies to both you and Dale - it's a gentle reminder to check the source before making the quote.

I'm enjoying this thread! Doug Johnson makes a good point - I share that ebb and flow to where I place my attention - often on the basis of how much time I can get out. There are (at least) two hobbies at play.

I have also dramatically changed the way I evaluate and select gear based on what I have learned here. For example, I would now hesitate to select an framed pack for summer use - rucksacks have proved perfectly comfortable. Likewise for "beer can pots." Interestingly, I have not found that this translates to any huge change to my backcountry routine. I start earlier and walk longer. But the rythm of decision making is basically unchaged.

My thought is that wilderness travel skills are somewhat separate from changes in gear. Learning how to navigate and route find, choose a campsite, manage your energy, manage cold and wet, recognize and avoid hazards - are all core skills that change little. The weight of your pack is a variable in a set of ancient equations.

Edited by jackfl on 11/14/2006 14:22:31 MST.

"When compared to my trad gear, my UL and SUL gear tends to be cheaper (even much cheaper). "

True in some aspects, Scott, but I think the dreaded 'Why did I buy everything two or three times?" cycle that so many must go through before seeing the 'light' is counterproductive to the backpacking community as a whole (though maybe not the manufacturers profiting from this cycle). The sport of backpacking would grow exponentially if all of its adherents had more exposure to the lessons that (comparatively) few have learned. It's hard to argue against lighter=better.

It would be great if one could buy a Shires Tarptent for the same price of a Kelty backpacking tent. Now I know that many, many factors go into the why those two ends of the spectrum exist but my point is I feel better, lighter gear is tends to be priced above mass market items due to the lack of awareness and demand for such items. Maybe the backpacking community has much farther to go in this regard than we do in getting to that 5 pound, four season pack weight.

That being said I do salute the crew of Backpacking Light for their continued efforts in spreading the word, whether it is through this website, clinics for NOLS and BSA, or what have you.

As an aside, my statements are in no way intended as a criticism of all the cottage industry folks out there working hard to make us great products. I know they're not getting rich and they deserve every penny they earn, and then some.

I'm grooving on this discussion too. Much better response to my questions that I had hoped to see. Its great to see everyone describing why they make the decisions they do and compare that with your own thoughts. We do need discourse like this to keep the wheels moving. Its tough to get out of the gear-talk mentality sometimes when you're parked at a PC.

Just to sum up my perspective a little further...One of the best advancements I made was moving from a 22.4 ounce Jetboil to a beercan stove. I was amazed at how light it was and how well it worked! I had already upgraded (lightened) my pack and sleeping bag 3 times over 6 years at that point...but that was the single leep that really drove home the point to not be afraid to try something. What do you have to lose??? My close friends are still afraid at most times to make a dramatic switch. I on the other hand figure the worst I will do is sell something unwanted on-line and chalk up any lost money to experience.

I do have two children under the age of 4, and so I fall into the more time planning than going mode. And as much as I love gear, and analyzing why something is a hair better than something else...I still am way more fascinated with locations. I dream of the Wind River range. I stare longingly out the airplane window at the Lake Powell area and Green River when I fly over and wonder what it would be like to be tucked into a nook...lost to society for a week, instead of on my way to a meeting. I check the Glacier webcam weekly.

So in that regard, Ryan is also spot on. Context makes the whole thing play. Where and how will I use it??? I have been thinking how fun it would be to try snowshoe backpacking...and for me that is huge. I have not wanted to try that since a miserable experience when I was 12 or 13.

And if you had not noticed...look at all of us gear heads jumping on this relatively non-gear related thread. I still will push BPL to explore beyond the main focus of gear. I appreciate that someone goes to the expo and gives us a non-commercial review...but what about a trip to the Golite factory to learn about their trials and tribs. Or a profile of the guy who started Whole Foods, who as a CEO of a highly successful retailer, takes 2 to 3 months off to thru hike? Or a pictorial of Ryan's favorite fishing holes, complete with ultralight gear list? Or best reader trips contest. I realize these may be rather cheesy ideas, but again...continue to put it into context for and with us.

This great thread seems to mean different things to different people, depending on how the concept of UL fits their life. Dale's Hypermaterialism post, Miguel's 'Ultralight mind' from a previous post, and these recent posts have helped me understand why UL resonates with me. After years of HeavyWeight materialism and being owned by my possessions, I made that leap that Dale talked about earlier and basically re-started my life with about 1 m3 of stuff and a new job overseas. Quit my job, sold my house, finished a divorce, etc. Without realizing it, I have been pursuing Miguel's ultralight-mind; with some success. It might sound strange but I have similar rules for my personal relationships now as I do for my gear; no more dead weight or negative influences allowed.
Just as the UL philosophy teaches that the lightest 'tool' is the knowledge in your head, in my career I have come to rely more on my knowledge than on superficial symbols of success. When I consult a client now, I use the same technique one of us might use converting a traditional backpacker to UL. I strip the clients program down to the smallest number of indivisible essential requirements for success and find the most economical (not just in $) solution, and relentlessly iterate that process until completion. It is quite an opposite approach from most consultants who pad the process with heavy jargon and procedures. And interestingly, most UL techniques I learn here have a parallel theory I can adapt to my work. (I don't mean wearing a shadow-hoodie to my next client meeting, I mean the UL philosophies :) I apologize if I have digressed from the original theme of this thread.

I wonder how many lights would glow on a map of the USA if each perfect 5-8# baseweight kit that sits unused in a closet were to be represented by a single (lets make it LED) point of light. I agree that their is a tension between "gear" and "go". I have nothing against lightweight gear--it lets me go and do more than I otherwise could. I would like to have more articles and features on the "go".

Have we nearly reached the pinacle of ultralight sucess? I think for mild conditions nearly so, though I certainly see room for improvement on the durability front. In poorer conditions I think we have more room for improvement. We can clearly push the envelope in snow/sustained rain/wind/cold conditions. For example, I'd love to test out vapor barrier clothing in warmer conditions (so I could possibly use down in a temperate rainforest). Improvements in these areas would probably have carry-over to milder conditions.

I also wonder if acclimating the body to cold and really learning about microclimate/natural protective features might mean less "reserve" is needed. I am reminded about the Ojibwa indians and how they adapted to colder conditions by exposing themselves as colder temperatures arrived through fall and winter. Could we carry less with such adaptation? These are largely "training/knowledge" issues and weigh nothing.

> It would be great if one could buy a Shires Tarptent for the same price of a Kelty backpacking tent. Now I know that many, many factors go into the why those two ends of the spectrum exist but my point is I feel better, lighter gear is tends to be priced above mass market items due to the lack of awareness and demand for such items.

Here I have to strongly disagree with you. I make my own 3 and 4-season tents, and I know how much effort goes into them. The design is more complex, far more complex, than some of the very simple mass-market tents like, say, the Hubba. Those tents are DESIGNED for simple mass production first and foremost. Henry's tents have a lot more focus on performance. To get the sort of performance I want in mine I sew mine to within 1 mm of the nominal stitch line.

The price of well made high-performance gear will always be a fair bit more than the cheap mass-market stuff. Sad, but you get what you pay for.

> 'Why did I buy everything two or three times?" cycle
There is a perfectly logical reason for this: your requirements have changed over time. I'll bet that when you bought your first bit of gear you did not have UL in mind?

"The market demand will not arise unless the consumer becomes more educated as to the benefits of carrying lighter gear. Maybe the future of ultralight hiking should lie more in the direction of education than in 0.5 ounce fabrics. When I'm out with the less intiated I know I always try to espouse why I carry the gear I do, as opposed to just quoting specs."

Good point, Russell. My time spent here has not simply resulted in only selecting lighter gear. Most of the 'enlightenment' has been between my ears, thinking differently, carrying less, realizing certain things are not needed, opting for a different approach. As has been stated, there's not much difference between 3 and 5 pounds carried. But KNOWING what you're doing, carrying the appropriate thing, and why is so much more valuable.

My refusal to buy heavy crap from major manufacturers is my contribution to lowering demand for it. I'm not so sure simply lightening the crap is a good goal.

The interchange of ideas here in these forums has sparked a lot creativity and alternate methods. My horizon may be at the opposite point of the compass from yours... and I like that.

Edited by moedog56 on 11/16/2006 16:05:47 MST.

From my perspective I think I really would like to stop obsessing about gear.

I have a 1 9oz sleeping bag a 1 lb pack, all I need is a one pound shelter. With this purchase I hope I can stop the aquiring of gear and just look forward to the trip.

My gear will continue to evolve as I find new ways to use the gear I have. However the obession about a new wind shirt because it weighs 1/2 oz lighter that the one you currently have, must stop or slow down. Sometimes I feel that the thinking about gear occuies way more time and energy that any actuall trips we may take. I think I would like to put more energy and time in the planning of my next trip, than in the research of gear. Working with what you have or modifying what you have is way more productive.

For a good example look at Bill Fornshell, he makes his own gear, a way more productive use of his time and energy than waiting for the new Golite line is.

To Quote Mr. Jardine " Go out there and give it a try. Camping with less gear requires a new attitude and a willingness to experiment until you discover what works for you."