Well, in spite of claiming that SUL is for the masses, I'd rather pose the question: is it no longer just for freaks?

This forum is a companion discussion to BackpackingLight.com's growing body of literature about SuperUltraLight backpacking. In particular, appropriate topics for discussion here include: safety, comfort, gear choices and availability, and what is accomplished (practically and philosophically) by invoking a "SuperUltraLight" style. Our mission is very simple: to get y'all to try it just once every now and then...

Edited by ryan on 07/26/2005 18:13:58 MDT.

Ok so Im guessing theres a few other people on this group that live in warm climate places. I live in Australia and to me sub-5 is relatively easy. My absolute winter gear list for where I would walk would be comparable to some of your summer lists. I will be posting a gear list in the next few weeks (just finishing up some uni exams and then a off for a month of hiking here and there).

Currently my gear including what I would take for a winter outing comes up to 4.2lb. Now theres a few things extra I could throw in there such as a cocoon when i get around to buying one and a bivy im going to make from spinnaker fabric and quantum. I also don't see the absolute need for a poncho. I have a GVP spinnshelter, thats pretty light for a full coverage shelter. other than that everything else is basically the same except that I really dont take much first aid at all. I think in the future I made moleskin my feet before I leave and save the weight in the pack.

Because most sub5ing will be done over only short duration trips(more than 3days less than 2 weeks), one can save all kinds of weight. durability can go out the window for some items. such as using garbage bags and rubber bands and the like for keeping gear. Im not talking about completly "dirtbagging" it but theres many things that can be dropped. it also comes down to tayloring your gear specifically for your environment. If its mid summer here and the forecast says no rain for a weekend. i might just say why not leave my rain protection at home and save half a pound. if theres been no significant rain, why cant i just use a torso length 1/8" piece of foam and bundle some debris to keep me off the ground. if its around full moon time, dont worry about the light. why do i need hot food if the weather is warm. its these kind of things that make the difference. sub5 is a real fringe and i believe that you must make the mental transition in order to get right into it. you must stop relying on gear to get you through and start employing survival skills. i myself would rather take gear but im confident that if i didnt have gear i could keep myslef alive for long periods of time on just the environment.

it seems like a lot of sub5 lists ive seen try to put as much extra gear in as they can, to get it up to 5lb rather than just leaving it out. if you can do without sunscreen for a few days then dont take it, why do you need layer if the weather is warm. its really quite simple if you want it to be. i dont have as much experience with this fringe level as the staff here but i think the more information that comes out about technique here the better off we will all be.

Paul,
You have plenty of gear (as you mentioned) that you can drop to get to sub-5. It doesn't look like you "want" to. And that is an angle I want to explore. Is there really a reason to drop that last pound or two to get to sub-5? You probably won't notice the difference in pack weight on shorter trips. So, why give up those few extra comforts - is it worth it? My GUESS, is that I'll enjoy the challenge of sub-5-ing over the next few months. It'll be an interesting challenge to see what SUL gear works best. But, after the experiment is over, I won't be surprised if some luxuries creep back into my pack and bring it back up above 5 lbs. I'm also open to something different happening. Maybe the simplicity of sub-5 will be so enthralling, and the experiece so much more pure, I'll continue sub-5-ing. Maybe, as when I went from an 11 to 8 lb baseweight, I'll shift my paradigm and realize I didn't really need all those items I thought were essential in my 8 lb pack. I don't know, and that's what makes it so interesting! Can't wait to get out there!

Paul,
any chance you can share your spreedsheet with the masses? For others to use?

For over two years now, I've been doing overnight or two-night hikes using a gear kit that weighs in at around 5.5 pounds. It's going to be very hard for me to go to a lower weight without giving up some significant margins of safety. But with the kit I'm using I've been out in temperatures down to about 28°F, and in significant wind and rain storms.

I'm a very lean 6'1" and 185 lbs. So gear for me does weigh a bit more that gear for someone who is 6 inches shorter, but only by perhaps 4 or 5 ounces total.

For the sake of comparison, I do think a more useful measure is percentage of lean body weight, rather that a fixed base weight. Perhaps we should have a 5% full-skin-out base weight challenge. For example, I've been measured recently as having 15.5% body fat, so my lean body weight is about 157 pounds. That means that I should shoot for a 7.8 pounds full-skin-out kit.

I guess 5 in a nice number, as far as numbers go. It was real easy to learn my 5 tables in grade school, and the US treasury makes a bill in that value. But really, what's wrong with sub-6ing it anyway?

(BTW, I think sub-5ing is a completely legitimate challenge to entice us to push our limits. :)

Looking over Carol's list, which is very skim, it doesn't look like a camera could be added without bumping over the 5 lb mark. On second thought, that Torsolite could be replaced by cut-to-size closed cell foam (did I hear a moan from the crowd?) saving 4 or 5 ounces. I think I would add a few more emergency matches and some deep wound disinfectant, in case things get freaky out there.

I see you're taking the Speer Hammocks Top Bag. Is that the same as the Top Blanket?

How do you like this item? I was interested in this product, but Ed Speer said it would be too narrow for ground sleepers. Any comments?

Thanks,
-adam

Last year, or maybe it was the year before I was experimenting with how low I could get my pack weight. I was able to get below 5lbs... but I didn't like the experience, so my summer, go light weight bounced back up to 7lbs. If I was willing to spend $150, I could get my base weight down to 6lb (pick up a G6 pack rather than my GoLite Dawn, get a BA 44" Air Core pad). So, what preventd me from staying at a sub 5lb weight?

1) Poncho as shelter and rain protection. I much prefer a rain jacket to a poncho, and I like a tarp which provides more coverage than a poncho.

2) Minimalist pad for sleeping. I don't sleep well on foam mats or self inflaters. I actually sleep through the night using a thick air mattress.

3) A few luxuries. The camera I take is only 4oz, fleece pillow case is 1.2oz, Brunton ADC Pro (I am a weather geek) is 1.8 oz which totals 7oz. If all I cared about was trimming weight, I could leave these behind and be completely safe.

Another way I could save some weight is dropping the cooking gear. In the summer I find that I don't want hot food or to hassle with cooking with strong mosquito pressure.

My list normal list is in excel http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/gear/backpack.html
The list for my last SUL-ish trip is http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/gear/backpack-slight.html

--mark

Edited by verber on 10/18/2005 11:17:35 MDT.

Paul,
You have plenty of gear (as you mentioned) that you can drop to get to sub-5. It doesn't look like you "want" to. And that is an angle I want to explore. Is there really a reason to drop that last pound or two to get to sub-5? You probably won't notice the difference in pack weight on shorter trips. So, why give up those few extra comforts - is it worth it? My GUESS, is that I'll enjoy the challenge of sub-5-ing over the next few months. It'll be an interesting challenge to see what SUL gear works best. But, after the experiment is over, I won't be surprised if some luxuries creep back into my pack and bring it back up above 5 lbs. I'm also open to something different happening. Maybe the simplicity of sub-5 will be so enthralling, and the experiece so much more pure, I'll continue sub-5-ing. Maybe, as when I went from an 11 to 8 lb baseweight, I'll shift my paradigm and realize I didn't really need all those items I thought were essential in my 8 lb pack. I don't know, and that's what makes it so interesting! Can't wait to get out there!

Adam,
Thanks! It's the Speer Top Blanket. I'll correct that in the article. It is narrow (about 30 inches). It works great in a hammock (review coming this summer). I picked it for my sub-5 trip because I'm only expecting lows of about 60 and it's the lightest sleep quilt/bag I have in my arsenal at the moment. I haven't tried it on the ground yet. I expect it'll be fine for temps that warm.

One of the basic techniques of ultralight backpacking for reducing weigh it to start with the "big three" (Pack/Shelter/sleeping). The ultralighter concentrates on base weight as opposed to the traditional backpacker that uses total pack weight, including food and water.

It seems to me that when you start getting down to the 5 lb area a paradigm shift needs to occur. You now have "the big two" (food and water) which are the main weight contributors, with the base weight seeming almost a minor thing. It seems that to reduce your total weight more bang for the buck can be achieved by thinking of new techniques to deal with food and water.

The subject of lightweight food and techniques for carrying less water really need to be explored further. That's the next frontier.

I've done 4 weekend hikes this spring/early summer that could be classified as SUL, with a base weight below 5 pounds.

Key has been to reduce the number of gear items to a minimum, skipping kitchen and using a poncho-tarp setup with down top bag & small inflatable matress.

I've definately enjoyed it, the hiking is more fun, I can occationally run when I feel like it, making and breaking camp is quick and easy. The less gear I bring, the more freedom and connection with my surroundings I feel. The gear list has basically been:

*Pack
*Poncho-tarp
*Sleeping bag
*Matress
*Ground sheet
*Balaclava
*Thermal sweater
*Mittens
*Knife
*Mosquito head-net
*Tooth-brush & paste
*Mug
(+wallet, keys, bus pass)

Worn were thin softshell trousers and thin soft shell jacket, cap, t-shirt, underwear, socks, trail runnning shoes, Katadhin filter bottle in pouch on belt.

The pack is only 1000 cu in, so it is also essential to have compact, high-energy food. A thin foam mat can be a lot lighter than a TR Prolite 3 matress, but takes up too much space.

But this has been easy on low-land trails. Doing the same when hiking in the mountains will be much more of a challenge, but I'll give it a go this summer.

/Moe

Daniel Goldenberg wrote:
>>It seems to me that when you start getting down to the 5 lb area a paradigm shift needs to occur.
You now have "the big two" (food and water) which are the main weight contributors, with the base weight seeming almost a minor thing. It seems that to reduce your total weight more bang for the buck can be achieved by thinking of new techniques to deal with food and water.<<

For a JMT hike with my wife last year, we packed about 56,000 calories into about 1,300 cubic inches weighing around 34 pounds -- including packaging. That calculates out to 3.6 calories per gram, which is pretty close to the 4 calories per gram of pure protein or pure carbohydrate. While it's probably possible to pack food a little denser than we did, your meals would probably not be as nutritionally balanced as mine were (and I know because for several years I've been using nutritional software to balance vitamins, minerals, amino acids and such when planning my hiking meals).

Techniques to reduce the water one carries probably come down to tanking-up more at water sources and moderating your energy output to reduce sweating, or perhaps selecting routes that see water more frequently. Techniques to increase the density or reduce the amount of food carried will probably have to do with more frequent resupply, or poorer nutrition.

In sumary, while I think some people can probably make improvements in this area, others are probably near the practical limit already. Without including techniques to live off the land (certainly a taboo in national parks), what other options exist?

Cannibalism ?

Self-cannabalism: You finish your trip with what you truly need!:) What do you really need to survive? The new frontier!:)

I've more of a bike-packer and I've been working on trying to find where the SUL line is for that. When I started looking for info, all I was finding were gear lists where people were packing huge coleman tents, white gas stoves, a week of clothing changes, and camp showers. OUCH! So far, the only SUL-like gear list for bike touring I've found is by the Jardines, and it's very... um... well, we're familiar with Ray Jardine.

Bike touring assumes you'll be contacting civilization more but will be far away from repair parts if something does break (sometimes involving overnighting bigger things to yourself). Also, even though weight is a significant issue, aerodynamics matter just as much and therefore compact gear is important. Just like packrafting, it poses an interesting challenge and while a LOT of effort has been put into lightening bikes, very little attention goes into what people are packing. I'll be taking notes over the summer's (short) tours and I'll try to put together a SUL list for bike touring.

Hey Kit..a kindred soul! I've been doing short (2-3 day) trips on old mining/jeep roads in the Sierras and have found out that bulk is at LEAST as important as weight. Since I am in desert water consumes space and weight, leaving not much space for everything else. Look forward to your results.

I've often wondered this but have never heard an explanation......

So you get to your campsite and its pouring down rain; all the while you're "wearing" your evening's shelter (the famous tarp/poncho). Now, how do you erect your shelter without getting soaked in the process?

Same process in the morning when its still raining and you're trying to break camp.

I'm sure there's an easy answer that I just haven't thought of.

Two keys to this.

1. You need to be efficient and fast about pitching the tarp.

2. You need a water resistant wind shell to hold you over for a few minutes while erecting and/or adjusting your tarp, getting water, taking a pee, etc.

Upon arrival in camp, I take off my pack and drop it in a relatively sheltered area. above the treeline, it may just stay on. I grab stakes and guylines, which are easily accessible in an accessory pouch kept at the top of my pack or in an outside pocket. I attach all the guylines to the poncho, while wearing the poncho.

Now the fun begins.

Take off the poncho and lay it flat on the ground.

Immediately stake the two back corners. You can even do one stake while still wearing the poncho.

Stake a third corner, pop a shortened trekking pole at the rear ridgeline, and stake the ridgeline. You now have an a-frame in the rear.

Place an extended trekking pole at the front corner and stake that out. You now have a lean-to pitch in the front.

Cinch the hood and tie it off.

Get under the tarp and out of the rain.

If you're really good, you're pretty much done. If you've been hasty and things aren't exactly right, you can generally reach or dash out to make fine tune adjustments to get a taut pitch.

When it's pouring and I really have to go fast, I manage the process between taking the poncho off and jumping under the finished tarp in 90 seconds, plenty of time to get very wet, even with a water resistant wind shirt. But then again, you can do a lot with campsite selection by locating your camp under tree foliage, out of the wind, etc. Above the treeline, this process gets a lot shakier and you put yourself at greater risk for doing something wrong.

July 4, 2005 will be the start of an overnight backpacking ultimate extreme superlightweight record. I have begun training by going barefoot, carbo-loading, sleeping in my screened patio,exercising and conditioning my body, all while naked. I will start my two day and one night trip into the high sierras stealthly and early in the AM from an undisclosed location. My total weight out will be zero. I will have carbo-loaded for 3 days prior. My route has numerous pre tested streams for water. By then my overall tan will help with the intense sierra sun. I have picked out a few nice camp spots with natural foliage for a soft bed. When I get hungry, I may be able to eat a few well chosen natural products. If not I've fasted 2 days before with no ill effects. My three concessions to weight may be the application of a dose of that great 100% DEET and a sun screen and a liberal dose of zinc ointment to appropriate places. At night I plan to cover my self with pine needles and perhaps leaves.
My early AM return will also be stealthly. The anonymous posting will prevent mass crowds from showing up and
causing excess smog polution and a traffic jam while witnessing this historic event.

I actually know of one case where a very well known ultralight proponent walked away from the house and into the wilderness naked as a jay bird and made it to Day 11. His comment: "not recommended".

Just curious, "not recommended"; is that first-hand knowledge, second-hand knowledge, or not telling?

Edited by pj on 05/25/2005 22:59:36 MDT.

Glad to see that the main man is taking this in the humerous manner in which it was intended. LIGHT IS RIGHT

I believe what we see happening is a crossing of expanding a natural selection of backpacking vs the greying of the first large wave of backpacking...The first great wave of people seeking the solace of the mountains happened in the late 60's and early 70's. People got older and had children. The resilience of youth has been tempered by time. Many of that group are rediscovering backpacking as their children grow up and time for ourselves makes a grand return. The LW, UL, SUL revolution has given another life to the old and infirm. Now they (we) have much more disposible income.

When I was at the PCT kickoff in april I noticed that some of the gear (not all!) is approaching what I call the throw-away level of lightness and durability. A few shelters had been setup so that prospective buyers could see something besides a picture on a website and touch the goods. While dreaming of the holy triad of pack, shelter and bag I noticed that the seams of some tarps and tents were already showing gaps in the way they were put together!

Maybe there is a tradeoff to the lifespan of an item vs how light it is and how much lighter your wallet gets............but then again it is a business after all. Businesses need people to buy their products to continue R&D.

We all want to buy the newest, the lightest but then again do you really want a lot more backpackers out on the trail with you?

Ryan suggested that key to staying dry is being fast during setup and having a water resistant wind shell. With some ponchos (like the larger ponco/tarp from Brawny) it is possible to stay dry without the wind shell. With pratice I found that I could pitch my poncho as a tarp, staying protected by the poncho the entire time.

Rather than the typical A-frame pitch I would do a diamond which required six stakes and one pole. I would drop my poles at my feet, pull my head under the poncho, squat down still wearing my pack, turn around, drive three stakes into the ground, turn to the front, place two more stakes, pick up a pole and and place it in the appopriate place, wrap my guyline around the poncho and top of the pole, and then reach out from under the poncho to secure the guyline. Done. I could pull my pack off my back while I countinued to squat down, and place it on my knee. Pull out my groundcloth, place it one the ground and then sit down.

--mark

I forgot something to my posting...

It would be interesting to learn where the various backpackers have evolved from.

What I mean is when did people have their first experiences, how many years have they been at it, how often does gear get retired (or passed on). Have people adopted the downhill ski axiom of a new season=new skis and boots?

thank you, Randy

A pair of running shoes can certainly be worn out in one season, so getting a new one every year comes natural. (I guess most lightweight hikers aren't wearing heavy boots)

I noticed the trekking poles in the articles gear list. Personally I never use trekking poles, and I can see why those with a heavvy pack might feel the need for them. -But with a SUL or UL approach? You should be very agile anyway with such a small load, and not a lot of extra pressure for joints to handle. You'll spend more calories when hiking with poles, our bodies aren't optimised for that. So the poles = more weight carried and a need for more food = even more weight. (At least for longer hikes)

/Moe

"To each their own". Not to be contrary, but I take a little diff. view on trekking poles & why they should be inlcuded in a SUL / UL / LW 'kits'.

Trekking poles are not a new fangled invention. Perhaps in their modern form they are new, but people have used hiking staffs made from branches for as long as people have been around. They must have some benefit or they would have been discarded long, long ago. First order of business for my grandmother upon entering the forest was to find a branch to use as a hiking staff. These branches sure weighed more than a modern pair of CF trekking poles. It's not that she was elderly or infirmed, for even in her mid-70's, while on vacation, she climbed the Alps to a pick flower she remembered from her childhood.

You're absolutely right about needing to do more "work" when using trekking poles. You're also right that this is not the most efficient way to use the muscles of the upper body. This extra work can be minimized, however, by using poles of the proper length such that the hands, generally, unless ascending a steep grade, do not rise above the level of your heart while using the poles. Doing so places more load on the heart to pump add'l blood to a higher level, i.e. particularly your forearms and hands. This principle is readily grasped by anyone who has ever experienced an episode of orthostatic hypotension upon rising up from a reclining or seated postion too rapidly and experiencing a period of light headedness or even blacking out. [NOTE: You young'uns may not yet have experienced this, but live long enough & your chances become greater of doing so. I think keeping your cardio-vascular fitness level up will reduce this likelihood even with aging, but I am not a physician & so someone better qualified should perhaps comment on this point.]

Since even proper use of poles increases slightly the work you are required to do, how does using poles produce any benefit?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the following are some of the reasons/benefits:

1) Increased stability - particularly on rough or uneven terrain. Even with NO pack, stability is improved by having a wider "base" which is one thing trekking poles do. Having a base as wide as possible relative to one's CG (center-of-gravity) produces more stability. This is true whether one has a heavy pack, light pack, or no pack. Is it Leki that has T-shirts printed with the words "Four legs good; two legs bad"?!!! Certainly the benefit is less noticeable on flatter/smoother terrain.

2) Redistribution of Workload: I believe, though I have no carefully controlled empirical evidence, only my own anecdotal knowledge/experience, that the redistribution of the loads and work, which would only be done by the muscles of the lower body, which is now possible through the use of poles has an overall benefit of being able to hike faster/longer and/or with less fatigue as muscles of the upper body are now being recruited to do some of the work. The net effect, even considering the slight increase in overall work being added by the use of the poles, is to reduce somewhat the work being done by the muscles of the lower body. Therefore, these key muscle groups will NOT fatigue as rapidly, enabling one to hike longer. How often have you seen someone ascending a grade press the palms of their hands on their thighs to "help" their legs by reducing the workload on the leg muscles?!! The tricep muscles of their upper arms & their lats & pects are prob. contracting forcefully to assist the gluts/quads in extending the upper/lower leg, respectively, as one steps up. Isn't this basically what trekking poles would do in a similar scenario. [The use of trekking poles vs. no poles might be a good senior project or graduate level thesis(???) for someone in any number of fields of study. Research would include both field study, plus oxygen consumption measurements to help determine workload/efficiency & electromyograms in a laboratory enviroment - plus many other technical methods of acquiring data. I for one would be interested in reading the thesis and learning something. It would be nice to have an empirically determined quantification of the redistribution of loads & work as measured in a laboratory experiment & any overall benefits that would/might result.]

3) With each step, I notice, particularly when descending steep grades, the stress to the lower joints is reduced when I use trekking poles. Just climb & descend a ladder wearing your pack. Try it once using your hands & a second time w/o using your hands. Which is easier on your legs & feels more balanced? Yes, the ladder has a steeper "grade" to it than most terrain on which poles would be used, but then again one isn't climbing the ladder for 10+ hours a day as one does on treks. If some benefit is realized during a short, more intense test, then perhaps a similar benefit is to be realized for a longer, less extreme hike. I hope this point is clear? Perhaps a better example could have been chosen to illustrate it? If you have one please share it.

4) For tarp & many tarptent campers (depending on the tarptent they are using), when trees/branches are not available for use as tie-off pts for guylines, instead of having to carry single duty poles for pitching their tarp (these also add wt. & increase the work needing to by done by the hiker, do they not?!), they can make their trekking poles do dbl-duty by also using them when pitching their tarp. Obviously, this point is only valid, if trekking poles actually serve at least one other useful purpose, which I believe they do.

5) Some trekking poles are fantastically light, e.g. GossamerGear's LightTrek & LightTrekPlus poles, & the BMW/BPL StixPro poles & prob. weigh less than sng. duty poles intended solely for pitching the tarp - and so, would then be a better choice for lightening one's full skin-out wt & base pack wt.. Even though these are fixed length poles, there exist techniques for joining them together if a longer support pole is req'd for pitching a teepee or pyramid style tarptent which req. a single center pole [NOTE:The stiffer one piece poles would be a better choice for these long support poles since they have less flex.], as well as techniques for preventing the guyline from slipping down the pole when used with flat/shaped tarps and the pole happens to be too long. Heavier, adjustable poles are NOT mandatory for tarp campers. What I've just written is NOT first-hand knowledge & perhaps someone who tarp camps w/fixed len. poles should be commenting on this point.

This post is gettin' a bit long winded, so I best stop here. Hope someone else will continue with any other benefits of trekking poles I failed to mention and why they should be included as part of a SUL 'kit'. 'Nuff said.

Edited by pj on 05/26/2005 08:19:02 MDT.

Though I will probably never be able to be super ultralight backpacker due to my heavy camera gear, the trekking poles are of great value nontheless.

Any photographer will tell you that the use of a monopod or better yet, tripod will give much better support for camera equipment than hand holding a camera. When using a monopod (equivalent to a single trekking pole) as an example, your legs function as the other two legs of a tripod. A tripod allows more consistant composition and allows for greater depth of field in photos because the lens can be stopped down to a smaller aperture. Those additional "legs" of the trekking poles do the same thing for the human body, offering additional stability.

Also on steep inclines in particular whether climbing or decending (as Paul points out) whether using a heavy or light pack you will have less chance or slippage, or loss of balance, and you will put less stress on ankles, vertebrae, or hips.

Paul when I first read the post that was the exact answers I was going to give. I use my poles for balance and to reduce stress on lower muscle groups. At the end of the day my arms and legs hurt rather than just my legs but its not nearly as bad. Inclines be they up or down are much easier. I find that I get more speed going downhill with poles then without and my muscles do a heck of a lot less work. Uphills are even more noticeable, when you work the poles as supports for lifting nearly you whole body weight the tiredness that quickly comes to your legs is much less (on a side note, I goto the gym several times a week and do a lot of work on triceps and chest and this helps a lot with pole usage).

I use my poles as supports for a shelter tarp as well. So they save me the 3oz I would carry for supports for my tarp.

Poles are REALLY light these days. CF makes such a great material for poles and even with minimal pack weight it just seems so beneficial in the end to use them.

I have another use for them as well which I will put up in the near future. I'm just getting the plans done now and after I get a workong prototype I will post it all up for people to give me some feedback.

Edited by nihilist37 on 05/26/2005 07:16:28 MDT.

I made my own SUL trekking Poles that I can turn into a full size Tripod. The Trekking Poles are 3.2oz each and the extra necessary to make a tripod weigh 5.7oz. Most of that weight is the adjustable ball thing on the top of the tripod.






This is part of my 4 month AT Thru-Hike SUL mostly "home-made" gear.

Can A sane person truly enjoy a SuperUltralight AT Thru-Hike? I may find out next year.

Edited by bfornshell on 05/26/2005 09:08:32 MDT.

Bill,

Thanks for the input and comments. As a photographer much appriciated. And that ball thing is just a small ball head.

By the way check the weights you listed. If the poles weigh 3.2 oz each how can the total weight of the complete tripod weigh 5.7 oz? Did you mean 15.7 oz for the tripod weight or that the trekking poles total weight were 3.2 oz?

Rich

Edited by naturephoto1 on 05/26/2005 08:24:05 MDT.

Mark,
Can you go into some more detail on your technique? What spots did you place the first 3 and second 2 stakes? Wrap guyline around poncho and pole?

Carol,

I'll delete this post, if I remember to do so, after Mark replies with the real answer. However, just in case it takes him some time to reply, here's what I pictured in my mind.

He said "diamond" cfg. [More on the "diamond" shape later.]

So, how 'bout this.

the 3 stakes: one corner of the diamond (windward corner), center of one side, & the other corner of that side. (so now 3 stakes are all on one side).

the two stakes: on a side adjacent to that side just staked down by the 3 stakes, place one stake in the center of that side & the second stakes down the remaining free corner of that side.

the adjacent side to pick to stake down with the two stakes is selected so that the opening of the tarp will be leeward.

so now, 2 adjacent sides & their 3 corners are staked down by the 5 stakes, in other words these are the 3 corners & the centers of the 2 sides "bounded" by the 3 staked down corners. The two staked down sides form a letter 'V' shape with the apex of the 'V' facing into the wind. The 'V' shape also represents, pretty much, one-half of the tarp. The other half, not yet staked down, being an upside down 'V'. In truth, the sides of the 'V' won't be the same length since the poncho is a rectangle and not a square.

The remaining two sides & one corner (the "flying" half of the diamond, i.e. the entry when the pitch is complete) are still free until afixed to the trekking pole.

Does this sound right to you? Something is still bothering me about this. Since the ponchoTarps are not square in shape, they can't be used to make a symmetrical diamond shape. Does this make any diff when you pitch it? That is, when attempting to pitch it as a diamond it would end up being asymmetrical. Not being a tarp camper, I don't know the practical ramifications of this. Does this make any difference? Maybe one of you tarp campers can enlighten me on this point please.

If I understood Mark's pitching method correctly, then wouldn't you also want to guy out the centers of the two "flying" sides to minimize flapping? (after all there prob.is no cat. curve to the sides of the ponchoTarp)

Also, here's a technique I came across a few mos. ago while surfing. It's taken from Brawny's Dancing Light Gear website. Here is a salient excerpt followed by the URL from which the quoted text is excerpted:

" Have you visualized setting up your Poncho/Tarp/Pack Cover as a shelter in the pouring rain at the end of a long, hard day? In cold, wet and windy conditions this can mean removing your weatherproof/windproof layer at a time when you may need it most, which can increase your chances of getting hypothermia. One way to set up the Poncho/Tarp/Pack Cover as a shelter in such conditions is to have 5 tent stakes available. While kneeling down in a suitable spot, stake out the front corner, then the back corner on one side of the poncho. Spread it out as far as you can (a taut, straight line is best), creating a back wall. Then, stake out the other front corner and other back corner, so that the front is about 3 feet shorter than the back wall. Then insert one hiking pole in the slack side, lengthening this pole until the slack is taken up. Remove your pack. Then, remove yourself from the poncho and guy-out the front pole. You can then adjust the Poncho/Tarp/Pack Cover while inside the shelter. This technique should be perfected while you are at home, not on the trail."

She has pics of this pitch on the webpage. It's sort of a trapezoidal shaped pitch.

Here's a link to Dancing Light Gear's PonchoTarp & Brawny's pitching method

Edited by pj on 05/26/2005 12:07:34 MDT.

I hope this is easier to understand.

Each Trekking poles weighs 3.2oz or 91 grams. The extra parts to make the Tripod are: 3 sections of Aluminum tubes for the thrid leg, the attachment parts to connect the 2 Trekking Poles to the Ball Head part and the Ball Head for the tripod (see picture) weigh 5.7oz or 162 grams. Total (I think) is 3.2oz + 3.2oz + 5.7oz = 12.13oz or 344 grams. Grams are so much eaiser to work with.

The Tripod Aluminum third leg parts will also act as replacement parts for my Trekking poles if necessary. I can also attach them to the Trekking Poles for Tarp extentions. I have an idea where I can turn the three pole parts into the support for a camp stool.

How light do you think SUL can go before it becomes dirtbagging. By that I mean if each of us here were to only bring shelter (ponch or tarp), bag, warmth (sleeping bag and layers) most of us would fall well below the 4lb level. Sure we only have gorp and cold food to eat but were not carrying anything and thats what I would call dirtbagging. There must be some level where SUL becomes wilderness survival. Or is it more Gear orientated than weight orientated.

Edited by nihilist37 on 05/26/2005 09:14:16 MDT.

Thanks Bill, much more understandable.

When hiking on low-land trails, I don't bring a pole. I have lines with prepared loops in my pocket (the lines are about one arms lenght with a loop at each end), and start off (if it is raining) with attaching the first line hooked into the loop in the front of the poncho to a branch/small tree ahead of me. (About eye-height usually.) Then I take a step back to tension the line a bit and take of the hood so I get "under" the poncho-tarp and can twist around 180 degrees. Next is a line in the middle of the backside of the poncho, which gets attached to the ground with a stake. My arms may get a few drops of rain here, but not much.. After that, the 4 corners are staked out, directly to the ground if windy, or with lines of the same lenght or half the lenght as the front and back ones. I think the end result looks pretty much like Mark Verber's setup. Obviously the highest point towards the branch/tree is on the leeward side from the wind.

/Moe

Paul,
Ahh, I see. Thanks. Mark and Ryan's tarp setups are the same except that Ryan uses a rear pole to lift the center of one of the "Vee" edges (like the photo on the home page). I just played around with a BMW SpinPoncho and the rear pole is definitely needed to create more leg room. Jacksrbetter.com is sending me an 8'x8' tarp that converts into a rain cape to try out in the sub-5 challenge. I'll have to try Mark's setup technique with it.
Moe, you're technique might be possible with a trekking pole with practise. Attach a long guyline to the front corner (or center front for A frame), stake it out while wearing the poncho, back up and set the front pole. Slide your head out of the hood, turn around and stake the rear and sides. Of course, you'd have to maintain constant tension to keep the pole upright. On second thought, that would pretty much be a recipe in frustration because the pole is going to flop over. Anyway, I like your tree idea, Moe.

I'm wondering if the reason why Mark's pitch doesn't require a second pole (on the windward side) is for one or both of the following reasons:

1) He is perhaps on the shorter side??? And so, achieves ample coverage even though he can't make use of the extreme portion of windward apex since it may be pitched very low to the ground to prevent wind driven rain from entering.

2) The DLG ponchoTarp which Mark mentioned [that he uses???] in his original post is significantly larger than the BMW spinPoncho & so provides more coverage area. The DLG ponchoTarp is 116" x 63" according to the DLG website. Whereas, the BMW SpinPoncho is of a more typical poncho size being only 92" x 51". The significantly larger size of the DLG ponchoTarp is at the cost of ~3oz in wt though (6.5oz for the BMW vs. 9.5oz for the DLG). A litttle Trig will give us the diagonal lengths of the ponchos which would reveal why Mark maybe doesn't need to use a second pole even with the windward 'V' pitched close to the ground. The proof is left to the student. [Not being a teacher, I always wanted to say that.] Even w/o resorting to using the Law of Cosines or the Pythagorean Theorem, we know that the diff. in diagonal lengths b/t the 2 ponchos is something greater than the diff in lengths of the two ponchos longest sides. So, there should be more than two extra feet of coverage with the DLG ponchoTarp.

Never having used a tarp, I'm wondering if it truly comes out that way, i.e. 2 xtra ft of coverage since the rectanglar ponchoTarp would not truly form a diamond shape, once they are pitched using Mark's method (and other somewhat similar methods). Would anyone care to enligthen me please? Also, I edited my first post on this topic with a question that I don't know the ans. to. Hope someone can address that question dealing with using a rectangular shaped poncho for a diamond shaped pitch.

Edited by pj on 05/27/2005 02:34:13 MDT.

Paul,
Right you are. The two diagonals are 11' and 8' 9" from the numbers you listed. Exactly the reason the BMW tarp needs a rear pole to create more usable length.

Indeed... I used to use a DLG poncho which is larger and heavier than the BMW poncho, and the pictures from Brawney's site show the pitch I was describing. There are a number of other pitches which work well, but that is the easiest to perform from the inside.

But that's the past. In the last six months I switched back to using a rain jacket (Rainshield O2 when going extra light) and use a Spinnshelter as my tarp. I am much happier, even if it is several ounces heavier. What's more, it's lighter then when I used poncho + DWR bivy which was required when facing heavy wild/rain.

So much weight could be saved in packing alone that its crazy.

Store all your items in a large stuff sack. Then slip the stuff sack into your sleeping bag. (oops your using a quilt) well, wrap it around your stuff sack. Then put the whole thing in your pack liner along with your pad. close the pack liner and for extra protection wrap the ground cloth around the whole package. The packliner has holes for the straps of you pack if im not mistaken. sew some homade straps onto your pad. Use your guyline to compress it all. you've now eliminated many duplicated items

keep fast access items betweenpack liner and ground cloth (ex: poncho)

Why even bother with the smell proof bag. theres going to be smell on the outside anyways. You can also elliminate the bear bag and soft goods stuff sack. just hang everything you dont need in the stuff sack mentioned above.

Why do you need the poles to stow? If you stow the poles when you dont need them you must stop and remove your pack and then adjust the poles to your height and replace the pack then use the poles when you need them. this eliminates any hiking efficiancy you may gain with the poles. They are dead weight if you dont use them. you can save 3/4 a pound by switching to gossamer gear poles.

Your carrying almost as much out of the pack as in.Thats like cheating

Ok, I'm going to play the contrarion and write that I don't know if I buy into SUL backpacking. While I admire the scrutiny it entails when making a gearlist, I think any benefits it can possibly offer are offset by the drawbacks. The drawbacks I write of include:

1) The Poncho/Tarp set-up. In my experience, while the set-up in inclement conditions can be accomplished without getting too wet, I feel that it is way too much of a pain at the day's end when I am tired. One particular time, I had just slogged through late Spring snow, with a combo of sleet and rain blowing down hard. I was using an ID silponcho, all cinched up, yet I was soaked! So, I'm cold, miserable and just want to get the #$%$^@! shelter set-up. Oh man...it took me forever to set up that tarp. My fingers were clumsy and numb, I was tired, cold...it was a terrible experience that soured me on the whole poncho-tarp experience. The fact that I'm 6'3" doesn't help either.

2) It seems to me that it is more of a pi**ing contest mentality rather than just sound gear selection based on consideration of weight, safety margin, and cost. One example that I can cite is these new lines of synthetic insulation SUL garments. Sorry, but I've shopped around and tried out some of the stalwarts and feel that they offer so little in the way of warmth that they are practically useless to me (and I am VERY much a cold weather person). I live out East, so a down synthetic piece is out of the question for me given that I use a down sleeping bag. Thanks, I'll save money for gas and park fees by sticking with my now "roamy" 20 oz. Coal.

3) Creature comforts are not evil. Along the way, I have to give up the only lightweight pack that doesn't leave my shoulders hurting during day's end (Jam), I have to ditch the inflatable pad (sorry, 1" is useless to me...1.5" is heaven), and I have to ditch the comfort of sipping cocoa *while* eating breakfast and dinner because I can't bring my mug along. Someone rightly observed that cutting down on the big 3 is not enough to get you in the SUL domain. I agree: other sacrifices are warranted. I think it is a clear case of diminishing returns for me at that point. Sure, simplicity is great, but unfotunately most of my life is spent living an urban life. I get away 4-5 days at most. There is a certain level of discomfort that obscures the enjoyment of being outdoors for me. I want restful sleep, a painless shoulder, a happy lower back, and that perfect moment of sipping cocoa while eating my cous cous and watching the perfect sunset. That's more important to me than shedding the 3.5 extra pounds in my gear.

This might be anathema, but my name is Tony and I AM a staunch 8.5 lbs base weight backpacker. ;-) But, by all means explore the SUL domain and I'll keep enjoying your exploits!

Hi David,
If wearing clothes and shoes while hiking, and using trekking poles is cheating, I'm guilty! The 4.0 lbs of "Total Worn or Carried While Hiking” consists solely of clothes I’ll be wearing while hiking and the trekking poles.

You make some good points. I could use Gossamer Gear poles and probably will for the rest of my SUL trips. I chose collapsible poles for this trip so when I need to swim sections in the canyon, I can tie the collapsed poles to the TorsoLite along with the pad when I’m floating my pack. Of course Lightrek poles float, so that would be another option.

I could save some pack weight (3.9 oz) by ditching the pack. I’d need to add back in the weight of the straps for your configuration (1.5 oz?) and I’d need to use a pack cover with holes for the straps instead of the pack liner (like a big plastic bag) that I’m using. That wouldn’t work well for my canyoneering trip when I’ll be counting on the pack liner to help keep my sleeping bag dry, but would on other trips. The ground cloth I’m using is so small, I’m not sure how well it would wrap around the “package.” Also, I can’t quite see trying to glue straps to the self-inflatable TorsoLite. Ditching the pack would save approximately 2.4 oz, a significant savings, so it’s worth some experimentation to try to come up with a packless system that would work with my gear.

I’m only using 1 stuff sack (turkey bag for sleeping quilt and clothes) and want the redundancy of a waterproof stuff sack and pack liner since I’ll be floating my pack.

I can, and will, eliminate the Aloksak OP sak. There aren’t bears, just small animals. I’ll keep the 0.2 oz food bag (plastic Walmart bag), but I can get rid of the 0.5 oz “bear” rope. I’ll use my food as a pillow, and tie my pack to the TorsoLite with guyline. So, your ideas will save me 1.4 oz. Thanks!

Ha! Good movie, Tony.
My name is Carol and I AM a SUL experimenter.

Can you post your gear list as I agree with you, some basic comforts are a requisite

You could actualy put the pad on the outside of the liner mabey. But realy youve cut down your list beyond need everywhere but in the pole department. With the litetreks you could bring some extra luxery items.

What kind of canyon is it? If its a slot canyon then why bring all this sun protection? But then its your list.

David,
Changing poles won't allow me to bring more luxury items - the poles aren't included in the total in pack base weight - what I'm keeping sub-5-lbs.

The canyon is not a slot canyon. West Clear Creek goes through sections of narrows, but I think I'll be exposed to the sun most of the time.

I could use line wrapped horizontally around the package, and slide some kind of webbing straps formed into a loop under the lines to form straps. No sewing or glueing to the pad required.

Sorry slipped my mind about carrying the poles. DUH. But you strap idea is a good one. The idea of using teqnigue to compleatly eliminate the pack in backpacking is sort of weird but its cutting edge.

Useing your idea with the straps allsom allows this system to stick around when you ditch the inflatable to make room for winter clothes

If you get rid of the sleeping bag/quilt and the pad you save a pound and a half of pack weight. Just sleep on the ground in your clothes. If its raining you can pitch the tarp, or just wear it. If you get cold at night, you can hike at night and sleep during the day.

In fact, if you just wear the poncho/tarp then you eliminate the secondary use for the trekking poles and can justify getting rid of them too! That's another pound gone.

You can then also get rid of the stakes, lines and assorted pitching paraphernalia for a few more ounces. Eliminate the cooking gear and it's a few more ounces. But, really it's kind of silly to be arguing ounces when there's pounds to get rid of in the sleeping bag, pad and poles (although the poles don't count toward base weight, you still have to carry them).

That puts you at about 3 pound base pack weight, plus you've lost a pound of your carry weight from the poles.

Have fun,
B

Carol

Edited by rmoak on 06/03/2005 00:01:31 MDT.

Carol,

Good luck on your sub 5 pound adventures. I’ve long felt 5 pounds wasn’t an impossible goal. I’ve done overnights in fall and spring with just the cloths on my back and the 10 essentials stuffed in my pockets. Winter overnights were done with what was typically carried in day pack while ski touring or about 3 to 4 pounds. But as with Ryan and Alan’s trips survival was the key not comfort.

Now that I’ve got some good basic ultralight gear built, over the last few months I’ve been looking at SuperLight gear. The goal being something that provided the same level of comfort found in your normal 3 season gear. So it needs to support weather extremes from low 20’s to over a 100 degrees. The other criterion is durability. It’s rather easy to build something light if durability isn’t a serious factor. But how can one build a sub 5 pound pack capable of surviving a 5 month thru-hike without either babying the gear to the max or replacing every item one or more times.

It also seems clear that designing such gear requires a greater degree of integration. I’ve toyed with several core components but am still working on developing the unified theme that ties together function, weight, durability and comfort. Not sure whether it’s possible but it’s a fun challenge.

Ron.

Edited by rmoak on 06/03/2005 00:00:18 MDT.

HI Ron!
Glad to hear you're putting your talented design mind to SUL. Can't wait to see what you come up with!

I've done a 5-day survival "backpack" with just a fanny pack. My goal in the SUL Challenge is different. I want the gear to be "transparent" so the wilderness comes into focus. With survival level gear, that's what I focus on - survival. With too much gear, that's what I focus on - gear. I want to find out if 5-lb is the place where I don't need to constantly focus on survival AND the gear doesn't distract me from my surroundings.

Carol, what exactly do you mean by "transparency?"

Andrew, contact me offline (abad@mit.edu) with your email address and I'll send you my gear list. I just figured that given the topic, posting my gear list here might be inappropriate.

-Tony

Hi Tony,
I was just getting a little poetic. The gear is there to help me enjoy the wilderness, not to be the focus of the trip, i.e. be transparent.

Ryan mentioned a 3/8 closed-cell foam with a cured surface for sub 5 pound weight. The REi blue is not cured and the other pads I have ran across lately are not cured either. What brand and store is carrying the cured surface version.

Lacking a cured surface and thus possibly a soaked pad, wouldn't one put the pad under the ground sheet to keep dry?

Hi Fred:www.gossamergear.com have this tipe of pad.Good look.

An equally light alternative to using a torso length pad is to make or buy an ultralight air mattress. Last year there were a number of discussions about making super light air mattresses. One such thread can be found at:

http://www.backpacking.net/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=52242&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

http://www.balloonbed.com/ is selling a air mattress which use balloons for the air bladders. "Base weight" is 3oz, plus .2oz (7grams) worth of balloons / night. The whole package (air mattress, pump, balloons for four nights is smaller than an apple. I wrote up a brief review of the balloonbed http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/gear/reviews/balloonbed.html

I generally found the balloonbed to be more comfortable than a therm-a-rest ultright or a good closed cell pad when it came to cushioning. I wouldn't want to use it in cold weather since it was be less insulating and tieing balloons with cold fingers won't be fun.

I wouldn't recommend using an ultralight air mattress on trips where food and/or water drive pack weight up significantly because you will really want your pad to help the structure of your pack as well as providing something to sleep on.

--mark

Hi Mark, That is one of my projects and was a very popular thread. I use the my trail name of gardenville at some forums. Using the Poly Tube Material for an Air Mattress was one of my better ideas.

The SUL DAM and Sleep System will be used with a pack bag mounted on one of my SUL External Frames so I don't need a Pad for pack support. The summer version of my SUL Air Mattress can weigh as little as 4 or 5oz and be 78" long x 26" wide and 3.5 " thick blown up. This goes into my hammock so the 26" width works out fine. The final weight is a factor of the shell material used and type of clamp for the Poly Tubes.

I finished a working prototype DAM and Down Top Cover good to "0" degrees for use in my custom silk Speer Hammock. You can see the DAM System at the end of the thread. Cancer interrupted my cold weather testing plan last fall. I was able to finish my prototype and I hope to roll over my test plan from last fall to this fall.

The finished system was going to be made out of some Pertex Quatam I have but I may use something that is easier to replace and save the Pertex Quatam for something else.

Edited by bfornshell on 06/10/2005 14:22:53 MDT.

Ryan wrote a great article called "Hiking Efficiency: A Day in the Life of an Ultrlight Hiker". "Slow Joe" has a question?

For a long continuous hike such as an AT Thru-Hike:
1. Where is the most efficient place to carry my water?
2. What is more efficient taking a bottle out of a pocket on my pack for a drink (or someplace else) or using somekind of Platypus bottle with a drinking tube that I just suck water out of?

I have checked the weight of a lot of different water conainers. The Platypus water products seem to be the lightest ones. A small mesh pocket for a bottle would weigh less then a larger mesh pocket for something with a drink tube but if the drink tube way is more efficient day after day for several months the extra weight might be worth it.

I will be making my AT Pack so I can tailor my pack and how I carry my water bottles (s) what ever way seems to be the most efficient way. I expect to carry bottles for up to 2 liters of water.

Thanks.

>> 1. Where is the most efficient place to carry my water?

From the standpoint of weight distribution, as close to your pack as possible - ie in a hydration sleeve inside your pack. unfortunately, access is usually a pain, which makes you inefficient when it comes time to retreat/refill your water bladder. From a standpoint of water use, a hydration system is very hard to beat. But, you can't monitor your water consumption levels doing that either, and i find that i drink more than i need when using a hydration system.

Bill,

I would agree with Dr. J's response as to the best place to carry water.

However, for my part, i believe (i could be wrong) that there are really a number of factors that might come into play. Perhaps what follows is a little bit of over-analysis (or "over-anal-ysis" in this case - a bit too anal-retentive here???).

The bottom line will end up at the same spot as Dr. J, but a more circuitous route will be followed to get there.

1. keep heavy things as close to the body's natural CG (center-of-gravity) as possible.
2. since the natural CG is inside our body, we can't do this. furthermore, wearing a 10-30lb pack on our back moves our CG rearward.
3. it would be nice to distribute the water around our waist, i.e. around the area of our body's natural unladen CG. this would NOT move our CG while wearing a pack forward, but at least would no longer contribute to the rearward movement of our CG. But as you have already determined empirically (am i recalling this correctly from your earlier posts on the water-belt???), ergonomically this isn't really practical. it would also unload our shoulder straps somewhat if the water weight was transferred from the pack's hydration sleeve to our hip/waist-belt, but again ergonomically, this isn't practical for large volumes of water.
4. we have a heavy moment attached to our back, i.e. our pack.
5. since the wt. of our pack has moved our CG towards our back instead of inside of us, it would be nice to counter-balance this moment by moving the water in front of us, e.g. in a chest pocket, but perhaps again, both ergonomically and from a safety standpoint this might not be a good idea since it might make bending over, climbing with our chest close to the rocks, or seeing our foot placement difficult.
6. so now, the bottom line as i see it is: read Dr. J's post again for the right answer and forget what you've just read in this post.

i've only written it to perhaps stimulate someone else, more clever than i, to come up with a better way to carry water. as far as my own ideas, i'm "dry".

If i want to keep moving w/o having to stop to drink, the bladder is my choice. Also, it's easier to keep the fluid cooler in the summer & warmer in the winter if it's insulated inside of the pack. From a drinking effort standpoint, not that "sucking" water through a Platy's tube is difficult, but it's obviously easier to take a Platy bottle & tip it upside-down & drink from it, or squirt it into your mouth. I find that i drink more often, every 10-15 minutes a couple or a few swallows, if i'm using a bladder. if using a bottle, i drink less frequently (b/c i have to stop to drink or else i would trip & fall - i can walk & chew gum simultaneously, however), but i drink more than just a couple of swallows at one time.

if MY bladder starts to fill, then I'm drinking too much - this occurs more frequently when using a Platy hyd. bladder. However, if the converse occurs, i have to wonder if i'm gettin' a bit dehydrated? One thing i like about Platy bottles is that at a glance i can see how much water i have left just in case i need to ration it b/f the next water source is reached.

addtionally, for some individuals tight capsular ligaments of the shoulder joint restrict range of movement and prevent retrieving a water bottle from side mesh pocket. one could, however, use a bungee loop to afix water bottles to the shoulder straps. obviously, a bladder's tube eliminates this issue. they even have a nice "tube director" that you can bend to place the bite-valve right in front of you mouth - sort of like Bob Dylan playing the harmonica while having both hands occupied playing the guitar. For cold weather i might recommend an insulated tube covering - don't want the water to freeze if we forget to drink regularly.

GVP carries a bladder&tube in a side pocket of the G5 pack. he mentioned this in an email he sent me a while back. i guess it's not too difficult to check how much is left in a bladder in the side pocket (or rear pocket of the G6 Whisper pack) as cp. to a bladder in a pack's int. hyd. sleeve.

do you want to revisit the water-belt idea, or a variation of it?

Edited by pj on 06/29/2005 15:50:48 MDT.

When I first started backpacking, in the days when external packs ruled the trails, internal frame packs were deemed a passing fad, and frameless packs were only carried on day trips by bird watchers, I came across what I always felt to be the best solution for carrying water. (By the way, did I miss insulting anyone in my reminiscence?)

I attached a water bottle holster directly to the e-frame hipbelt, sliding it as far toward my hip as possible (where the frame stopped it.) In those days, hipbelts rarely had stabilizer straps to interfere with this placement. It put the water as close to my center of gravity as possible, and prevented it from exerting any "leverage" on the pack.

Camp Trails evidently agreed with this placement, because they adapted a very similar location on their Wilderness internal frame pack. (Yes, by then, it was obvious that i-frames were not a passing fad; once Colin Fletcher started using one, they were here to stay!)

However, shortly after this placement was introduced, folks started walking along the trails sucking water from tubes - and the hydration sleeve drove the water bottle pocket to extinction. (When did we get in such a hurry that we couldn't stop for a minute or two to take a drink and, perhaps, enjoy the view? End of editorial.)

Given my druthers, I still think the hipbelt is a great place for a water bottle. Of course, if you prefer a bladder and hose, inside the pack along the back is the best. With frameless packs, which usually lack stabilizer straps, maybe the pockets will make a comeback (what do you say, Glen Van Peski and Ron Moak?)

Edited by garkjr on 06/29/2005 17:37:08 MDT.

I want to thank Ryan, Paul, and Glenn for your impute. As far as I am concerned everything is on the table for this question. I remain open to other ideas or comments.

For most of my hiking life I have used some type of water container that attached to something on my hip. For my years as a US Infantryman it was the standard army canteen on my web gear pushed back toward my back. This arrangement made it very easy to reach my canteen and I normally had a canteen on both sides. The canteen cover had 2 clips on it that let you attach it to your web gear anywhere you wanted it. The webbing on the rucksacks were even made so you could attach the canteen cover to it.






The clip weighs 0.70oz so in todays world that clip would be way to heavy to think about using. I expect something like a light weight piece of Grosgrain would work. Since I expect to use one of my external frames on my AT Hike I will look at a possible design change for the "Side Wing" idea I am playing with. The Platypus .5L water bottle weighs about 19.5oz full of water. A pouch of some type should not be to hard to make that would attach to the "Side Wing" things. I could put a pouch on both sides of my frame. I could made them out of some really light material (think Cuben maybe) one for a water bottle and the other maybe for my small digital camera.

Something like this pouch/platypus bottle would put my water bottle on my hip belt and easy to reach. I will work on this idea and see how it turns out.

I'd forgotten about the army wearing canteens in the same spot (I was in the Air Force; they didn't trust us with real military gear.) However, now that you've reminded me, I do remember playing with my Dad's old webbing belt and (aluminum) canteen from WWII.

Guess my idea wasn't anywhere near as original as I thought - the army got there first. (Don't tell the Marines I said that!!)

I've seen peoples ideas for a water belt and thought it was a great idea. However unless it is integrated into the pack it could get in the way of a hip belt. Is it possible to make a system that would carry it around the small of the back at about stomach height. I think there it would have even less of a percieved weight since that's where we would carry extra weight if we were heavier.

I agree with Dr.J. that monitoring wa ter consumption levels is essential. In the winter I do store my bladder next to my back and use an insulated tube. I have become pretty good at estimating my remaining reservoir level, however, during the rest of the year I hang the fill opening flange on my Camelbak 3 liter bladder on the side compression strap that I added to my GoLite Gust. This makes it very easy to both monitor remaining reservoir level and to refill.

As far as consumption goes. I do drink more with a bladder-which is the idea. Most atheletes perform dehydrated and experience related reduction in work output and resistance to injury. With the bladder I sip small amounts every 2-3 minutes on the fly. This is almost like being on a glucose and electrolite I.V. drip. My body loves this and I can hike or climb 14 hrs. straight and still be strong and energetic nurturing my body in this manner.

Even Uber Hardman Mark Twight says if he had it to do over he would hydrate more - alot more.

any chance of some pics of the Gust compression strap w/ and w/o the bladder?

Sorry Paul,
I rang up Emily at the local phone company exchange office on my dial telephone to order one of those new-fangled digital cameras to snap some photos for you but my party line was occupied. If I can get the Edsel to turn over today maybe I can get down to the dry goods store to see if the new models have come in.

In the meantime, I can tell you that I used the supplied stitched in webbing attachment points to sew 2 compression straps on each side exactly like most packs come with. I used 1/2 in. webbing and ladder lock buckles from Outdoor Wilderness Fabric Inc. <owfinc.com>

These straps held my Camelbak fine for the length of the JMT last year and also held my randonee skis in place while climbing 7000' up Shepherd Pass this May with no problems.

thanks. understood - for the most part. what i didn't understand, but it didn't seem to affect me appreciation for the reply you wrote, was the "Luddite" reference in the subject line.

interesting

Edited by romanandrey on 10/20/2005 08:46:29 MDT.

My wife tells me back in the 70's she used to remove her clothes during rain storms and stuff them in her pack, hiking naked under a poncho. Her clothes stayed dry and few folks on the trail new her secret. I would guess that if temps were warm enough, the same could apply for setting up your pancho/tarp/tent. just get naked and dry off after set-up.

I noticed anonymous's comment that he couldn't see the need for trekking poles - and I agree with him.
I tried using poles, and found that I was spending far too much time worrying about where the poles were landing, when I should have been watching my feet. Good poles placement, but bad foot placement.
So now I let the automatic parts of my brain focus entirely on foot placement - and go faster and farther and more safely as a result.
And I am carrying less overall weight.

this topic has been dealt with more than adequately previously - several times. search the Forums for some rather detailed descriptions of the many irrefutable advantages of using Trekking Poles. be prepared to have someone keep you awake as you read the lengthy posts. the advantages described range from the the area of physics, and engineering, to muscle physiology, and applied kinesiology, as well as touching upon one very limited aspect of the history of man. there are some pretty compelling arguments in these posts which should at least give one pause to contemplate - even though they weren't intended to be a polished polemic, nor an all-encompassing apologetic, but rather a hastily, off-the-top-of-the-head, collection of words - much like this Post.

from my perspective (which no one is required to share - see the below "quote"), the only disadvantage is the extra 4.7oz i need to carry. however, the many advantages far "outweigh" (pun intended) the measly 4.7oz my GG LightTrek poles weigh..

must everyone use trekking poles? obviously, no.

are they absolutely required on all terrain? no.

do they offer advantages virtually anytime they are used? yes.

do these advantages outweigh the disadvantages? that's a question each individual must answer for themselves. "hike your own hike!" (was it RayJ that wrote that? i can't remember. anyways, it was a greater one than i.)

I can not travel with nearly as light a pack as most on this site due to my professional camera gear. In addition, I have the remnants of 2 broken wrists from a bicylce accident with a car (the car won). I don't have the strength in the hands and wrists that I once had and I periodically get pain in the wrists. I can not grab things such as trees etc. for regaining balance or assisting in climbing. My trekking poles have saved my butt and equipment more than once.

Additionally, due to the weight of my gear (largely due to the camera equipment) my center of balance is thrown off and the poles help me maintain balance and make it easier to traverse up and down hills, as well as maintain support and balance when stepping down.

In addition, the weight of my 5.4 oz BMW Stix Pro Poles (6.2 oz with baskets) is comparatively less if using a shelter that requires one or more poles (they replace the need to carry extra poles), thus they perform multiple tasks.

I consider the additional weight well worth the effort.

Rich

Edited by naturephoto1 on 11/04/2005 07:47:17 MST.

goodness sakes, stick a couple of 12 oz plastic pop bottles in the side pockets of your pants! Pull em out (on the move if you must) and drink. CG is low, the wgt is on your hips and it's handy. No tubes or reaching into your pack. Keep it real simple!
the Gnome of Blue Island

hi moe!

'skipping the kitchen'.. does that mean you just brought ready to eat food along? what kinds of foods?

ann