When have you gone too light?

[Roger Caffin]

I think Joseph made a very important point which gets forgotten far too often. Once you have your gear down to a low figure, further reductions are
a) a bit pointless overall
b) hazardous in that your flexibility weather-wise is seriously reduced
c) irrelevant compared to the weight of food and water on any decent length of trip

Another factor to consider: which is more important? Knocking off another 4 oz base weight, or being comfortable and actually enjoying the trip?

[Mark Verber]

I actually think it's a good idea to go "too light" on the comfort scale a number of time.If you don't go too light on the comfort scale, you will never know what your limits actually are. I think it's a bad idea to go too light on the safety scale.

One way to insure you have found your limits without taking a serious risk is to bring some safety items, but not use them unless you think you are at real risk, e.g. not to use the items if you are merely miserable. When I was trying to figure out how far I could push my quilt and insulation I carried a thermawrap jacket in a drybag, but never took it out… even when I was quite chilled. There have been a few trips where my teeth were slightly chattering and I needed to do exercises to warm up… but the thermawrap stayed packed away. If I had gotten to full blown, uncontrolled shivering the thermawrap would have come out… but it wasn't needed.

Once you figure out your limits, add things back until you hit the comfort level / flexibility / simplicity. Most ofmy gear changes in the last year or so have been to simplify life in the back country (like a shelter that is faster / easier to pitch) or reduces the number of items I have to choice between when packing (typical by choicing to use something slightly heavier which gives me a larger range of uses.

–mark

[Brett .]

Ian makes great points. I would summarize it as too many generations of LW gear sitting on the shelves at home, but not enough in your pack when you need it.

I also learned modern LW backpacking at this site, and I also went too light, in 3 ways:

Safety is compromised. Numerous examples were related above. To throw in my worst case, I had to extract a severely ill companion on a 3,000m+ alpine route- (Miguel and Michael, you know it as the daikiretsu to Yarigatake..)the only viable escape route would have been relatively easy with crampons one axe, and about 20m of rope, but we did not have these because the planned route did not require them and I was on a fast&light summit attempt. We tied every piece of webbing, cord, lanyard, etc. together and I used body bollard, and boot belays to lower my companion. It was ugly. This year on summer routes above 3,000m I will carry 20m of 6mm, Grivel Spider crampons(140g), and a 50cm CampXLA210.

The second example of going too light is when comfort is compromised too much. For example having a too-cold sleeping system or a painful 'onion-sack' of a backpack. I think of spectrum of comfort with 'traveling comfort = light' at one end, and 'in-camp comfort = heavy' at the other end. I make choices from my gear inventory based on the ratio of traveling vs. in-camp time.

Lastly, economy is compromised too much. This has two components,
a. gear which is replaced with even lighter gear: For most requirements I have a succession of lighter and newer gear to fulfill it. As a result, most of it never gets used. That was just a waste of money. The solution is to learn from sites like BPL, but reduce the frequency of purchases.
b.gear which wears out too quickly. Examples are paper-thin rain wear and a light backpack which both tore first day of use.

I have now settled on a core group of gear which is light but also durable and versatile.

[Will Rietveld]

This has been a good read, lots of good information here for Nicole.

The only thing I can add is: for me, there's a weight threshold where I can't tell much difference. If my pack weight is under about 15-18 pounds, its light enough and doesn't seem to bear on me and slow me down when carrying it all day.

I tried SUL a lot a couple of summers ago, but found that its hard to go SUL in the mountains at high elevations. For example, its hard to make the SUL base weight and not use a poncho-tarp. For me, SUL gear worked great in good weather, but my kit was a bit borderline in less favorable weather. It also worked better for fast and light trips, where I could predict the weather better.

Since then, I have reverted back to UL and feel very comfortable there. With UL gear, I can still take a good shelter, warm bag, and adequate insulated clothing and stay light. I can handle a rainy trip or an unexpectedly cold night. So that's the safety and comfort factors kicking in – with UL gear I can adapt to the conditions; with SUL gear I'm much more limited (in the mountains) and I can suffer as a result.

On the heavy end, I go LW when I am backpacking with my wife. We bring a few more comfort items, and I know I will be hiking slower anyway. But the 25 pound pack definitely slows me down, I feel the weight, it feels like I'm carrying an anchor in my pack. The disadvantage of going UL all the time is I lose my ability to comfortably carry a heavier pack.

Good luck on your article Nicole!

[Josh Leavitt]

This is a late contribution, but I have to share. Looking back on it, its pretty funny.

Waking up in between wood runs, to find that your coat is on fire, because your sleeping in the fetal position around the fire. So no gear, could be too light.

Josh

[Jason Brinkman]

In order of severity:

1. When it is no longer fun
2. When it is no longer safe
3. When you no longer return under your own power

[mark henley]

SUL on a weekend where you could hike out if needed is one thing … SUL on a week long trip where you may be three days hike out of the mountains is another thing all together.

I've done weekends with as little as 4 lbs of baseweight, but I wouldn't want the same load for a week in the mountains.

About 7 to 8 lbs of baseweight gives me a comfortable trip with a good margin of safety.

Some examples:

An emergency bivy is a LOT more comfortable with a Micropuff jacket and a warm hat.

My Down bag has gotten wet before … twice. I always carry the backup emergency bivy (at 3.5 oz) as an addition to my baseweight.

Twisting your ankle with a full day's hike ahead of you really stinks — a 2 inch Ace Bandage is worth it's weight in gold.

Getting stung by a nest of wasps when you're trying to do your morning duty, and not having any benadyrl is downright foolish ….. carry some with you.

When attacked by bugs and you run out of deet …. you feel pretty foolish ….. so, don't forget the headnet and some bug stuff.

[Lynn Tramper]

Too little food is the worst I've suffered. Not life threatening, but I found it impossible to enjoy myself due to the constant hunger.

[Denis Hazlewood]

When I began setting up my tent in the face of an approaching thunder storm and discovered I'd left the tent poles on the backseat.

[Anonymous]

Unloading my pack to set-up my tent in the face of an approaching thunderstorm and discovering that I had no tent. Sorry Denis, no intent to trump the seriousness of your circumstance.

[Denis Hazlewood]

Bad luck John. At least I was able to jury rig some half vast guy lines to trees and use the tent anyway.

In 1995 a hiker, on a trip I was guiding, forgot his sleeping bag and ended up carrying two blankets he was able to borrow from a friendly person at the trail head. We were camping above 10,000 feet and Art said he didn't get much sleep.

[Anonymous]

Denis,

I wonder what the first two words spoken were on discovering you had no tent poles? :-)

[Denis Hazlewood]

John,
The BPL "Filth Blocker" won't let me print them.

[Eric Riddick]

I think you are going too light when you no longer are carrying a real backpack, no longer wearing boots of any type, and are able to fast pack at such a high speed that basically, you are doing a hybrid of trail running and SUL. I think SUL people aren't REAL backpackers, SUL people are some sort of hybrid between extreme long distance trail runners and a very minimalist backpacker mentality.

SUL is fine for hot summer months in North America, but not for much else.

Eric

[Denis Hazlewood]

At my age, and physical condition, I prefer to carry a much lighter pack than I used to. I have gone from 36/38 pounds, total weight carried for a 6 day trip, to about 27 pounds. My base weight is about 12 pounds, without consumables. It has never been my goal to do high mileages and 10 to 12 miles per day is just about my maximum. I stop often to enjoy the scenery and take photos.

While leading groups of beginning backpackers, which I have done for the past 22 years, I focus on enjoying the experience of being self sufficient, in comfort and safety, in the wilderness.

I like reading BPL posts about new unsupported records for the JMT and various trails, and always enjoy meeting thru hikers on the trail, but it is not why I'm out there.

Carrying less will allow me to continue doing what I enjoy longer and give me memories and stories to tell when I finally "hang up my boots" (or in my case, my Targhee II low tops.)

Every one should HIKE YOUR OWN HIKE. But I'm glad there are some wackos out there showing us what's possible. It has allowed me to get that 10 pounds off my back. Now if I could only get the 10 pounds off my waist.

[Joe Kuster]

Eric,

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Most of us here aren't trail runners and still do standard mileage + just a little. What many of us really enjoy is taking the burden out of our trips and feeling much more refreshed when coming into camp as well as making room for other pursuits such as photography, fishing and such. Most of us carry a standard pace of 3 to 3.5 mph, we just don't get so worn down we need to stop early or it allows us to make the most out of whatever limited time we get to spend outdoors.

There are of course long distance hikers who use it as a true fast and light philosophy. I tend to think of it more as a light and unburdened philosophy.

[Mark Verber]

> you are going too light when you…

I think it would have been fine to say "Doing / carrying / etc X is too light for me", but saying "you are going too light" is suggesting that your list is a general truism.

I would disagree with most of your assertions. You are projecting your biases and preferences on others without any reasonable justification.

Taking a lead from Jason's "too light in order of severity:"

1. When it is no longer fun
2. When it is no longer safe
3. When you no longer return under your own power

None of the things in your list qualifies under (2) or (3). For most of us, the items on your list don't effective (1). Specifically:

> no longer are carrying a real backpack,

Define a real backpack? A certain material, weight, has a frame… what? I think what's important with a backpack is that it has enough volume to hold all the items you are carrying and carrying those items comfortably. If you are only carrying 15lbs of stuff (enough for a 5-7 day SUL trip).. then one of the crazy light backpacks is plenty comfortable for most people.

> no longer wearing boots of any type,

I would bet that vast majority of people who post on bpl don't wear boots. trail runners are not just worn by SUL backpackers, they are a stable among UL, light weight backpackers, and even some "traditional" / "mid-weight" backpackers. Why do we wear trail runners? Because they have been more comfortable for us and provide adequate safety for our feet.

> and are able to fast pack at such a high speed

Regarding the rate of hiking… many (most?) of the people who talk about SUL are not going at high rates of speed… they are going at typical walking / hiking speeds (2-3.5mph). This is faster than someone carrying a crushingly heavy pack, but about the same speed as someone taking a stroll around town. The high mileage is because SUL folks typically take less (or at least shorter) breaks that their heavy-weight brethren, and typically start earlier and end later. Why? They don't get tired out so they spend all the daylight hours on their feet hiking and enjoying the sights, sounds, and experiences as they stroll down the trail, rather than struggling to get to camp, and then crashing in exhaustion.

Once again… what's "too light" about that?

> SUL is fine for hot summer months in North America, but not for much else.

Hmm… I guess it demands on your definition of "hot summer" is. For me, "hot summer" are days above 70F, nights above 60F. I have taken numerous SUL trips into what I would consider "shoulder" seasons which have included incidental weather and night time temps below freezing. On these SUL trip my base weight varied between 4-5lbs (gear list). The two trips that came closest to be "too light": a fall trip than never got above 50F, a late afternoon storm dumped several inches of snow, the night dropped to around 15F; and a spring trip where it never stopped raining, with the day time around 55F and the night dropping down to around 35F. On both trips I was warm enough, had enough food, was able to dry out, didn't have problems with other hazards.

In the spirit of full disclosure. On the colder trip I did not sleep well, so it would be fair to say that I was too light from a "comfort" standpoint, but I was fine from a safety standpoint. This was one of the trips that my ballonbed failed a couple of nights. The ground was hard, and the thinlite pad didn't provide enough insulation.

My last SUL trip was likely earlier this spring. Why? (1) I haven't found anything lighter than my insulated air mattress that consistently gives me a good night sleep… and this is something I won't compromise on. Not only do I like to sleep, but sleep deprivation can lead to bad judgment which I don't want to risk. (2) My injured shoulder has become even more sensitive to pressure. I can't carry more than 8-9lbs on my shoulder for more than an hour without pain. So even on extremely light weight trips I want a good hip strap and something to provide enough structure to keep the shoulder straps from putting much weight on my shoulders.

–Mark

[Eric Riddick]

Lets examine the definitions of some common words according to Webster's dictionary.

"Backpack (noun): a) a load carried on the back; b) a camping pack (as of canvas or nylon) supported by a aluminum frame and carried on the back

Backpack (verb): to carry (food or equipment) on the back especially in hiking."

Backpack-er…a person who carries a backpack on their back

Backpack-ing…an outdoor recreational sport where a person walks from point A to point B while carrying a backpack on their back.

Now I don't know about you, but to me, when a person's "backpack" reaches a certain negligible weight as occurs with SULers, I personally cant bring myself to call them backpackers. They have to be carrying something of substance on their back. Otherwise, to me they are just hikers or trail runners.

I'm sorry, but a Gossamer Gear type Maripossa daypack type pack or a light load carried by ultra distance trail runners doesn't equal a real backpack.

I'm not against SUL BTW, Ive done it myself. Ive done the poncho/tarp thing with no stove, one water bottle, minimal food and just a canteen cup with spoon for cookware. Its a stripped down to the core form of outdoor travel, almost exclusively done when the weather is warm. But is it real backpacking of substance? No.

[Eric Riddick]

>would disagree with most of your assertions.
>You are projecting your biases and preferences on others >without any reasonable justification.

Are you sure about that? Think about it.

Does a five pound load plus a water bottle and a little food equal a backpack? I can carry most of that in two large cargo pockets on my fatigue pants and wear the water bottle on my belt or wear a camelback. Miscellaneous items can be carried in shirt pockets.

To be a backpacker, you have to carry a backpack on one's back.

Im just pointing out there is a point at which a load becomes so light, as to become negligible. It is at that point that I refuse to acknowledge that person as a backpacker. What they morph into, I dont know. Perhaps a new name could be developed for SULers. As I mentioned earlier, SULing seems to be a hybrid of trail running, hiking, extreme minimalist camping bordering on survivalism, etc. Perhaps its a new sport or outdoor activity that demands its own unique name. Its is NOT backpacking.

How about Super Ultra-Light land navigator? or Super Ultra-Light trailsman? Or Super Ultra-Light terrain traveler? But if you aren't carrying a backpack, can you call yourself a backpacker? Is 5 pounds a backpack? Come on, you know its not.

Eric

[Miguel Arboleda]

To be a backpacker, you have to carry a backpack on one's back.

Seems like the argument here is purely for argument. It's quibbling over semantics. No answers will come of any of this.

[Misfit Mystic]

Remember, Eric, this is Backpacking LIGHT, and there are people on these boards who take some pretty serious trips in not-so-benign conditions, and do it with very light baseweights.

Besides, how do you define backpacking? For me, it's all about solitude and getting to places people rarely go. Both require a greater range than most "traditional" backpackers are capable of. If I hike just 2 more hours per day, at a rate just .5 mph faster than "trad packers", I can probably cover an additional 5-10 miles a day, or 15-20 miles per day total. In places like the Wind Rivers, this puts you in the backcountry in one day, rather than two.

It often is a safety issue as well. I've dramatically reduced both the frequency and severity of ankle injuries since lightening my pack weight and footwear selection. I also consider light flexible footwear to be safer in technical terrain; it's hard to smear on sandstone or boulder hop on granite slabs in heavy, stiff boots.

My smaller volume pack also makes negotiating difficult terrain features like blowdowns or tight canyon constrictions far easier, and a smaller pack without a heavy metal frame will ride closer to your center of gravity, making balance easier on something like a knife-edge, or crossing a tough stream.

There's lots of reasons we try to hike with as little as possible, but to say we're not backpacking is narrow-minded. Hike your own hike.

[Dave T]

.

[EndoftheTrail]

My thoughts:

1. If you wear a backpack when hiking or traveling, then you are a backpacker. Don't know why Eric should interject a "weight factor" to the definition where none exists under commonly accepted definition!

2. In many parts of the world (e.g. Europe) — travelers who carry a backpack are called backpackers — and what they do is 'backpacking' — even if they check into a downtown hotel/hostel every night! So is this "real backpacking of substance" (using Eric's words)? If not, then what about staying in huts along the AT? Who decides? Who cares?

3. Having said the above, I am actually not sure what the big hoopla is with labeling anyway!?! Get over the label infatuation — and you'll note that OP's question of "when have you gone too light" can apply to all situations! Heck, methinks too often, it's winter day hikers who are caught unprepared — gone too light!

[Rog Tallbloke]

>there is a point at which a load becomes so light, as to become negligible. It is at that point that I refuse to acknowledge that person as a backpacker. What they morph into, I dont know.

Well if the kit is so light there's no proper wash gear in there, they're obviously dirtbaggers. ;-)

To my way of thinking, a backpacker should be able to switch plans and head off in any direction as the fancy takes/weather dictates. Last November in N.E. Spain, we were walking round the Cap de Cruz peninsula on the when the cold tramontana wind became too much of an impediment to my partner, she's only 126lb. So we hitched into the south facing tree covered Pyrenean foothills and had a lovely time in the sun. Then we picked up a lift into Andorra and the high peaks. We weren't sufficiently equipped for high altitude and used a cheap hotel a couple of nights while my partner recovered from a twisted ankle.

We were away two weeks living out of lightweight backpacks.

Were we being purists? No.

Were we backpacking? Yes.

[Adam Rothermich]

You know, my school recently changed its name. Many of the alumni and students were up in arms. "We'll never donate money to the university again!" "I'll transfer to another school!" "The Chancellor can go to… " you get the picture.

But really, in the end, does it matter what its called? Its still the same buildings and faculty, still the same quality of education.

And in the end, we're all still getting outdoors and going to places we love and having a great time. I personally don't care what you call it.

Adam

[Author]

Posts