Mar 4, 2009 at 5:09 am #1234516
Chris MorganBPL Member
@chrismorganLocale: Southern Oregon
So I recieved the backpacker.com "Ultralight Handbook" in my email today. Interesting portions are posted to my gearlist PDF:
(It doesn't appear the material is copyrighted)
Some choice ideas from backpacker.com:
1. "Going light is a bit like marriage: It’s a multifaceted contract that requires your constant commitment. Cheat just a little bit, and your hike—and especially your shoulders—will suffer."
2. "If in doubt, leave it out."
3. "Hard-core fastpackers hit the trail predawn —typically the coldest hour of the night—when they start feeling chilled in their light-weight bags."
4. "Choose layers based on the fore- cast, and don’t double up (no wind jacket and rain shell)." BUT do take "midweight long-sleeve top, one synthetic T, lightweight shorts and pants, a light down jacket (10-12 ounces.), two pairs of socks and underwear, two hats (for sun and warmth), and (maybe) light gloves and rain pants."
5. "Even the lightest stoves add ounces, especially when you tally fuel and cooking-gear ballast. Leave it home"
6. "And that extra food you always carry? Skip it. Even remote trails are usually within a day’s hike of a road, and hunger would take weeks to kill you."
7. "Hiking without a topo (and guidebook) isn’t sane everywhere, but many trails are so well marked that no seasoned hiker could get lost."
8."Your kit should weigh no more than eight ounces: All you really need is antibiotic ointment, duct tape, a few gauze pads and bandages, a bit of blister treatment, and your WFA training (you got that, right?). In the ﬁeld, sub what’s available: sticks for SAM splints, a cold stream for an ice pack, a T-shirt for a dressing. "
9. "Leave the bulky, insulated waterproof/breathable jacket at home. It’s ﬁne for windy chairlifts, but too warm for winter hiking and snowshoeing."
10. "Bring only as much bag as you need. Warm sleepers should select a bag rated for the nighttime lows, while human popsicles should aim for a rating 10°F to 15°F lower. "
Bravo, backpacker.com, for making UL hiking safer for beginners everywhere.Mar 4, 2009 at 5:23 am #1482565
I sense a bit of sarcasm. On a related note, they also recommended not carrying water (and food, I believe) the beginning section of the JMT because you could pick up your pack later.
Sorry, but one twisted ankle will make you wanting food and water – even on a higher-heavy trail like the JMT.Mar 4, 2009 at 5:59 am #1482569
Ken T.BPL Member
Any note of who wrote that for them or was it from the editors of? I am sure NO ONE wants to take credit for it. What is the print version of an Allen Smithee?Mar 4, 2009 at 6:39 am #1482576
John S.BPL Member
Alot of it is pretty crappy advice.Mar 4, 2009 at 7:42 am #1482583
@clt1953Locale: northern minnesota
I have to agree. I had ordered this book a few years ago thinking i could get a few new ideas to lighten my load. I didn't think much of the book…felt i wasted my money..Mar 4, 2009 at 7:46 am #1482584
Joe ClementBPL Member
Am I the only person who hates the term "fastpacker"?Mar 4, 2009 at 7:50 am #1482587
On a larger rant, I despise BACKPACKER mag's categories for ultralight gear – especially packs. UL packs to me are generally frameless and do not weigh what the top UL packs the mag's guide said. I don't have my guide on me right now, but can anyone post the weight/volume of the three UL packs the mag selected?
Last time I check, my Z1 from Zpacks weighs in at 5.29 ounces with options – less without.
Along the same lines, the idea that you need a larger pack the longer you are out is more or less a fallacy as we here know. You need more space for consumables, mostly food, but the rest of your kit should remain more or less the same. You don't need to double your pack volume to get there. Bah!
Same rant for tents, although I did like to see the nod to the TT Contrail and DR. On the DR note, the snippet made it sound like the tent was brand new when it has been out since 2006 or so.Mar 4, 2009 at 7:52 am #1482588
.Mar 4, 2009 at 7:58 am #1482592
I have been called a fastpacker by folks who see me on the trail. These folks are generally burgeoned with huge loads and are plodding along slowly. I walk at a very brisk pace, but I also am carrying a UL load. I think my running background pushes that pace up. It probably doesn't help the image that all UL folks are those who just run up and down trails for the pure sake of logging miles.
That said, Brian Frankle's rant about "fast and Light" is fantastic – basically it is light and efficient that should matter and not fast and light. Unfortunately, the manufacturers use this nomenclature and that drives the term. See TNF Summit Series, ID's fast and light section and anything geared toward climbers, such as BD's series of packs that allow you to strip off the hipbelt, stays and/or lids.
GoLite's website calls Skurka fastpacker – whether you agree with that is up to debate.
Me thinks that a letter to the mag is in order.Mar 4, 2009 at 8:35 am #1482603
Call me a fastpacker…UL backpacker…thru-hiker…fast and light…traditional backpacker…heavyweight hiker…mountain walker…outdoor enthusiast…a lover…a fighter…a wild bull rider…
Call me stupid.
Whatever the name, what does it matter?Mar 4, 2009 at 8:52 am #1482610
The mind likes to compartmentalize things and has a hard time without. Imagine a world without pronouns, or any time you look at a person and cannot determine if they are a man or a woman. Your brain goes berserk.
That said, these labels are only necessary for the person attempting to place the label. To the hiker being labeled, it doesn't mean squat.Mar 4, 2009 at 9:17 am #1482617
I hope that without names I'd still recognize men from women :)
"To the hiker being labeled, it doesn't mean squat."
My point exactly. Call me what you want.
So if "fastpacker" is a dumb name, then what?
Speedywalker? Naah…that's dumb too.
Quicktrekker? Too sci-fi.
Fastambler? Sounds like a late 50's sedan….
wait….how about quickshuffler?Mar 4, 2009 at 9:52 am #1482633
Jim W.BPL Member
Fastpacker is absolutely true. I used to fiddle around for two hours after getting up before hitting the trail. I got up, put on warm clothes, made breakfast, packed sleeping gear, packed tent, packed the rest of the c6ap, changed clothes, took a rest, etc.
Packing lighter, with much less extra stuff, no complicated tent, better packing routine, etc. is much faster. Now I wake up dressed in clothes appropriate to start the day's hike. Get up, pack sleeping gear, other gear (very little), stuff bivy in the outside of my pack, hit the trail. Wakeup to hiking is 15 minutes or less. Then when the day has warmed up I take a nice breakfast break.
Anyhow, I went from 2 hours packing to 15 minutes so that's "Fastpacking". I may walk slightly quicker as well.Mar 4, 2009 at 9:54 am #1482634
Sam HaraldsonBPL Member
@sharaldsLocale: Gallatin Range
This pdf is a bit of a rehash from a print article they did awhile back. I remember the related forum thread being just as scathing as this one.
An ultralight handbook coming from a magazine that reviewed a computer printer in their Gear Guide is… well, I'll leave that judgement up to the individual.
Excuse me, I'm going to go fastpacking now.Mar 4, 2009 at 9:57 am #1482638
@chadnscLocale: Duluth, Minnesota
Backpacking Light has used the term 'fastpacker' and 'fastpacking' in several members only articals over the last six months. For those of you that think those terms are used by only the uneducated that don't understand backpacking or lightweight backpacking. . .you may be correct.Mar 4, 2009 at 10:03 am #1482641
@walksoftlyLocale: Piney Woods
The Backpacker 2009 Gear Guide is really unsettling. "Best Ultralight Tent" at 3lbs 14oz. Ultralight backpack at 3lbs. They really don't have a clue. Some of their backbacks come in at nearly 8 lbs!!!!
I know that their staff has access to some of the best Ultralight hikers around. I guess that they have just gotten too cozy with traditional gear manufacturers and cannot see beyond who buys advertising in their magazine.Mar 4, 2009 at 10:21 am #1482651
How great is the connection between the magazine and the manufacturers?
Seems to me they are in cahoots on everything…it's all about synergy. Give high reviews to the products that also happen to come from the manufacturers that fill your pockets with advertising dollars.
It's just bizarre when I see some of this stuff…
I was on REI's website and saw the "new, Backpacking Mag. award winning" REI bags…2 lbs for a 25 degree bag.
I boubt a 2 lb., 20 degree pertex micrrolite bag from EMS years ago for $169. So why did REI win the award?
You have to wonder if some of these magazines are owned by the companies….
I guess that, in a sense, they are.
This happens everywhere to some degree.
While I think the reviews here are pretty objective, many of the articles definitely send people running for the BPL gear store. I don't doubt that this is part of BPL's overall revenue plans; nothing wrong with it, it's a business.
But I do really respect the fact that this site doesn't take advertising money…that's where reviews and content start getting really bogusMar 4, 2009 at 10:37 am #1482659
@strong806Locale: Near the AT
Someone should tell them that ultra-lighters all hike barefoot to save weight on shoes.Mar 4, 2009 at 12:48 pm #1482701
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
And Super-Ultra-Lighters don't take clothes either – so heavy …
CheersMar 4, 2009 at 1:18 pm #1482714
Mark McLauchlinBPL Member
@markmclauchlinLocale: Western Australia
Oh Roger, you really dont want to come across me walking naked on the trail to save a few kgs :) I'll leave my clothes on for the good of mankind (and womenkind for that matter)Mar 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm #1482724
@dubendorfLocale: CO, UT, MA, ME, NH, VT
This game of terminology reminds me of that famous scene where Mickey Mouse the Wizard shrinks furniture and other objects so that they all fit in his suitcase. Seems like this is the fantasy of the major retailers and manufacturers- no matter how many items we urge consumers to carry, as long as we label those items as lightweight, they will always fit easily in the pack and their individual weights will never collectively amount to anything. Linguist and philosopher J.L Austin would call this a "performative utterance." Such utterances are not just statements but also actions: one example is "I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth."
The problem is, of course, that this performative utterance doesn't shape, or even accurately describe, the reality it addresses. Saying it doesn't make it so. REI and companies like it want hikers to think light but buy heavy in the hopes that all those gadgets and gizmos will magically shrink in size as they are dancing through the air and into your pack.Mar 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm #1482731
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
I don't confuse UL with US (ultasmall). I still carry a Gust, and I frankly don't care if a UL item is smaller or not. I go purely by weight, and as long as my pack stays light enough for me to be comfortable, I am happy with my purchases and MYOG items.Mar 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm #1482794
.Mar 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm #1482806
Doug JohnsonBPL Member
@djohnsonLocale: Washington State
I just think we need more clarification on the terms.
Some of us are fastpackers while others are lightweightfastpackers. Others are ultralightfastpackers while some are simply ultralightslowpackers. But what about the supertraditionalfastpackers? THOSE guys are really hard core.
But I'm the only one that's a SuperUltraLightSuperUltraFastPacker. No one else can add the double Supers; I have a copyright on that term.
Seriously, it is funny. Fastpacker is a term that I've never heard used by an ultralight backpacker and it's hardly ever used on this site. Strikes me as something invented by Outside Magazine.Mar 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm #1482814
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
I HAVE noticed that since I've gone lightweight, it takes me less time to pack up in the morning. Maybe this is the best use of the term "fastpacker"?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.