May 1, 2007 at 9:39 pm #1223059
@bugbombLocale: South Texas
Companion forum thread to:May 2, 2007 at 12:15 am #1387874
@maynard76Locale: New England
An Article like this has been a long time comming. Since the 90's when the lightwieght backpacking movement was born,everyone was asking "how far can we take this? and still be safe?,comfortable?". With that other revolution of the 90's- the home PC and the internet, many brilliant minds from every corner of the globe set out to answer that question. We saw revolutionary new designs, concepts, techniques- forums were filled with people sharing experiences and ideas. The cottage industry was born.
There was an "avant garde" mood in lightweight backpacking. It is now well over a decade later and new designs keep comming, but I would argue that there has been a "standardization" in LW backpacking- of gear and technique. I welcome it – others I think are a little saddend by it. So where are the limits? Well there arnt any of course, but for the layman that would be some where at SUL. "HYOH" will always be the last word, but the warm reception of Caffins article I think shows this standarization, in other words-in the 90's you could show very practical, reasonable comparisons betweeen "traditional" backpacking and a 20 lb. and below pack- It is dramatic. Compare that argument to one between a 7-10lb. base weight and a 2-5lb. base and you can see why some people just shrugg thier shoulders. No one is calling any one a "lunatic". I think people are just trying to say that not every one who is into "ultralite" backpacking does it to "push their limits" but to enjoy the outdoors and escape the ratrace. At some point to lighten your load means more expense and the narrowing of the conditions the gear is appropriate for, and the enviromental cost of what a critic could call "disposable gear". I think, dare I say it- that many people are "satisfied" with 7-10lbs. base wt. Again hike your own hike- we all go out there for our own reasons.- ThanksMay 2, 2007 at 11:55 am #1387929
Nice podcast Ken. Who sings the song at the end of the podcast? I would like to buy some of that music.May 2, 2007 at 12:13 pm #1387934
@kenknightLocale: SE Michigan
John, I'm not surprised you missed this information. It's at the bottom of the main podcasts page. Here you go:
MUSIC "Look for Me in the Mountains" :: Lyrics – Chris Cunningham and Ryan Jordan :: Guitar, Vocals, Harmonies – Chris Cunningham :: Mandolin – Tom Murphy :: Bass – Chad Langford :: Recorded at Basecamp Productions, 7781 Nez Perce Drive, Bozeman MT 59715May 2, 2007 at 3:04 pm #1387962
@ryanLocale: Northern Rockies
The song will be available for free to BPLers this summer and will be syndicated in hi-fi to our iTunes channel, in the meantime, Chris' band is at Storyhill.com and has a similar sound.May 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm #1388055
@ryanLocale: Northern Rockies
Don't let anybody tell you otherwise, I was not involved in this discussion to defend myself.
My bushbuddy-baked muffin rocked.May 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm #1388126
@ericlLocale: Northern Colorado
I hope that future podcasts on the subject will contain greater focus/editing, better articulated points, and specific gear. I would have found a little spirited debating refreshing as well.
For instance, on the issue of safety, while I agree that a lighter weight pack itself contains a safety factor, other important points were not mentioned.
1. The heavier the pack, the greater chance of sprained ankles, falls, etc. – followed by all the problems of dealing with injuries carrying heavy packs. Any additional first aid in a heavy pack is unlikely to fully compensate.
2. Some light gear is inherently more foolproof and thus safer than their heavier counterparts. Alcohol stoves with no moving parts are more reliable, as are foam pads as opposed to the more common air mats.
3. Longevity is sometimes offset by a much cheaper price, such as with packs. I thought the talk of the extreme fragility of lightweight equipment was quite exagerated.
After all, ultralight was pioneered by some of the longest distance hikers around, and their gear needed to hold up. While my G5 pack might need some carefull care, my just under 1 pound G4 is quite rugged, as are my tarp, alcohol stove, foam pad, sleeping bags, and titanium cookwear.May 4, 2007 at 3:54 am #1388131
@einsteinxLocale: The Netherlands
This week I bought an Bluetooth USB dongle so my phone and pc can exchange files. I downloaded this podcast so I could listen to it on my daily commute (how do you spell that???). The sound quality was really bad: i.e. the volume was really low eventhough I set the phone volume to max. I couldn't hear it on the bus and not even in a much quiter tram. There was also a lot of static noise.
Would it be possible to boost the volume of this podcast? Maybe on others as well, though I haven't tried these on my phone yet.
In case I get some criticism about my phone; MP3 audio files I recorded my self have a normal, audible volume, so it's not a problem of my phone.
EinsMay 8, 2007 at 3:06 pm #1388612
@tomclarkLocale: East Coast
I think these podcasts are great, and enjoy listening to them. I agree on the volume complaint. I do wish we had heard more from some of the folks in thisnpodcast, it didn't seem like eveyone got equal time.
I agree that it would be nice to hear a real hashing out of some the finer points, like are bivy sacks needed since many super long distance hikers (e.g., Brian Robinson) don't use them. Let's hear some further justifications for a $100-200 piece of equipment.Nov 14, 2007 at 3:23 pm #1409105
I've looked all over the website and the iTunes, and I don't see the song at the end of the podcast anywhere. Is it really available like it says it would be above?Feb 2, 2008 at 9:26 pm #1418881
I can't find the song either.Feb 3, 2008 at 5:21 am #1418904
The song was never posted.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.