Has lightweight packing really caught on?

[Travis Leanna]

I think one of the big reasons is how many of the developed countries (namely the U.S.) put such an emphasis on consumerism. Think of the billions of dollars spent each year trying to convince us to buy, buy, buy. Much of the cause of the current economic crisis is because too many people just spent their money without really paying attention to whether or not they could actually AFFORD what they were buying.

We've evolved into a society of getting the latest and greatest, each season, and day in and day out.

Now, think of the companies that advertise the "traditional" gear. They have the means and resources to reach the masses, and that includes putting out dozens of new, but mostly redundant products because they know we're programmed to buy them!

Then there's the cottage guys. Tarptent, GG, SMD, etc, etc. No advertising. No large influx of products to the market each season. Nobody spending billions telling the general public that they NEED to buy their products and endorse their philosophies.

So, who really cares? Why spend time and money buying and trying products that I can't even touch before I buy them, when I have a Walmart, Target, Cabelas, REI, etc. next door to my house?

I think people often like the ideas behind lightweight backpacking, but at the end of the day are simply too lazy to care. It takes effort, so most people won't bother.

It's just a small group of people (that really do have a lot in common) that will take the time and energy to fully understand what we do here.

[drowning in spam]

Ultralight backpacking is a lot like modifying cars. Both are usually hobbies. Expensive hobbies. Both try to reduce weight to improve the capacity for speed. Both benefit from strong more nimble "legs". Some people race while others get most of their satisfaction from tweaking their gear. Both benefit greatly from studying about the hobby, thoroughly researching and carefully combining gear, but both benefit most of all by getting out there and actually "driving". There are forms of cheating, supplementation, boasting and bench racing in both. There are also people that take a slightly different approach.

Some people modify for comfort. Others try to look like us, but are nothing more than posers. Some have heavyweight gear, but they can go fast as hell. Many of them buy cheap gear and then keep adding lots of other crap that pretty much just makes them slower. There are some folks that have lots of money to spend, but little time or care to do the research so they go buy the coolest biggest looking things they can find.

This analogy could be taken much further, but all that matters is that the people doing it enjoy what they're doing. The people in the second paragraph that truly care to go fast, or at least have the right gear to go fast, will eventually fall into the first paragraph.

[Dan Montgomery]

"Conversely, I'd be curious to find out how many people on this site with tiny packs and uber-light loads spend loads of time and money on gear decisions every year and don't even log 100 miles."

I am one of the people on this site with a small, though not tiny, pack. I carry a light, though not uber-light, load. I spend a fair amount of time and at least some money on gear decisions and a I log fewer than 100 trail miles per year.

I get your point, but it's off the point of this thread. And — I don't mean any disrespect here — it suggests a snobby attitude that does the "lightweight movement" no good.

If I hike only 40 or 50 miles, should I necessarily carry 50 or 60 pounds in my pack and leave the nice, light gear to the more-deserving hardcore fastpackers? Does my enthusiasm for a light pack — and subsequent pain-free and pleasant trail miles — make me a poser in the eyes of "real" light hikers?

I'm reacting in part to the idea, which pops up periodically, that equates lightweight gear with epic long, fast, hikes. Lightweight gear should also equate with relatively slow and short, but pleasant, simplified and pain-free, hikes.

[Hal Potts]

Craig, I thought you made a great point. Some competent and experienced outdoors people don't travel light and they are just fine with that. I see them on the trail all the time having just as much fun as me. Excellent point.

[tommy d]

It's funny to me that the three biggest "comebacks" that people who don't really like the idea of lightweight backpacking are (a) you guys/gals are most likely physically overweight AKA fat and should lose some bodyweight rather than pack weight, (b) you don't hike enough to know what you're talking about, and (c) I knew this "gram weenie" once who spent $$$$ to save 3oz. It's funny because it really shows how weak the argument is against lightweight backpacking when the "defenders" of more traditional backpacking have to "attack the person" rather than addressing the ideas.

Of course, everybody is free to carrying what they see fit and hike at their own pace. That goes without even saying. That said, there are real benefits of considering gear weight and overall pack weight when selecting backpacking gear. And those benefits exist whether you're hiking an 8-mile hike once a year or doing a thru hike.

[Thomas Burns]

>It's funny to me that the three biggest "comebacks" that people who don't really like the idea of lightweight backpacking are (a) you guys/gals are most likely physically overweight AKA fat and should lose some bodyweight rather than pack weight, (b) you don't hike enough to know what you're talking about, and (c) I knew this "gram weenie" once who spent $$$$ to save 3oz.

These comments are me at various stages of my hiking comeback a few years ago, so I don't mind it when people make these comments. I went BPing for the first time after a long hiatus weighing 250 pounds. I went out with 45 pounds on my back, and swore I'd never do THAT again. And yes, cutting those last few ounces cost me plenty. I am proud to be a gram weenie because I simply wouldn't be BPing if I had not cut 35 pounds from my total pack weight one ounce at a time.

Daily walking and weekend BPing with a light pack simply kept me in the hobby. I lost 105 pounds in slightly less than a year, and I'm still hikin'.

I see a lot of heavy-weight packs on the trail (we really are in the very small minority, here in Ohio, at least). They mostly hike into the forest to the nearest campsite, sleep, and then hike back to the trailhead.

So anyway, BPingL hasn't caught on as a mass movement. So be it. I can live with the stigma among people who consider themselves "real" BPers, especially when I see the agony on their faces as they trudge up some unswitchbacked hill in the Shawnee State Forest. Bless them. I'm just glad it's not me.

In fact, most of the heavy-pack folks simply fawn over my gear at the campsites. At a campsite at Dolly Sods recently, the campers oooed and awed over my Hexamid shelter (but weren't so thrilled with the cost, which is one of the reasons that BPingL hasn't caught on. I will never forget the sight of a very nice woman closely examining every stitch and feature of my incredibly smelly Vibram Five Fingers KSO Treks.

"Here you go," I said, handing them to her, "if you can stand it."

"Don't worry. I'm a nurse. We're used to it," she replied.

In other words, we are the best representatives of the hobby and will best encourage its growth if we just let those negative comments by the heavy weights run right off our backs as we cruise up that steep hill at Shawnee without even breathing heavily. As you walk that trail, keep a smile on yer lips and a song in your heart. Or is it a song on your lips and a smile in your heart?

In the end, I'm not sure I want everyone to go light weight — too many danged people would be on the trail. :-) I'm just happy that there are enough folks buying LW gear to keep the cottage companies like Tarptent, GossamerGear, and Zpacks going.

Stargazer

[Dale Wambaugh]

Is this the fringe? You bet your titanium chopsticks it is.

Anyone who has done a gear list has seen how easy it is to have base weight get away from you. It's pretty easy to nail the Big Three, but clothing and all the little stuff can add up in a hurry. This is where we become the Gram Weenies. Then we get to trimming extra straps and other items from packs and the famous, "cut the handle off your toothbrush." Get way from using the decant-to-smaller-vials technique with personal hygiene items and you can add a pound with no effort at all. You can easily add several pounds with a haphazard clothing selection. Throw in a Leatherman Wave multi-tool vs a Victorinox Classic knife and you added 8oz on one item– the CASE for the Leatherman weighs more than the Classic! Ad infinitum.

And many won't go the Spartan route it takes to get light. They have to have clean socks and undies every day, separate sleeping clothing, massive sleep pads, big double wall tents, 4 pound boots, etc, etc, etc.

Fear adds some weight, taking items that won't be used, overkill on clothing, etc.

Does Macho-itis effect the load? There's a little Rambo in all the guys and it takes some effort to keep him in the bottle :)

I don't know about the retailers. I don't think there is a Great Conspiracy, just a lot of manufacturer's throwing in what they think will sell. A lot is just fashion. You can bet that 90% of the North Face gear never gets off the pavement. I see more ArcTeryx on the bus than I do on the trail. I imagine durability plays into a lot of it, on the consumer, retailer and manufacturer sides.

My 2 cents.

[Thomas Burns]

>I see more ArcTeryx on the bus than I do on the trail.

And I see far more $200 Granite-Gear backpacks on my (college) students' backs, full of books it is to be hoped, than I have on any trail.

BPing gear is very hip these days. Why shoot, I'm about to go teach my classes in a pair of Mountaingear pants (very stylist but far too heavy to wear on the trail). ;-)

Seriously, the heavier gear is a tad expensive compared to regular street clothes and bookbags, but it surely does hold up under daily stress and it lasts a long time. I own — and wear daily — hiking pants that are older than my students.

Stargazer

[Tad Englund]

I just caught this comment on Backpacker Mag.
" READERS COMMENTS
A hundred and twentyfive bones for something that if you are not careful might rip!? What world are you guys from? Perhaps your magazine might be labeled the Rich and the Frivolous. These items are cool but call me when the knife costs $20 and the Bivy won't rip.
Posted: Aug 24, 2010 Fred "

I think Fred is like the majority

[Andy F]

> What do you think is going on?

Consumerism. People buy what they are told, what is readily available, and what their friends are buying. They also make purchasing decisions based on the information available to them. We've been conditioned to turn wants into needs. At its core, backpacking goes against all of this.

It's not rational, but it is human. It's not that people are afraid to venture outside the box, it's that they don't even realize they're in one.

[Thomas Burns]

Well said, Andy.

Stargazer

[W I S N E R !]

My simple point:
If you look back over the content of this thread, I think you will find it riddled with subtle remarks of feeling sorry for those with heavy packs, a touch of elitism about that fact, and a general attitude that these folk somehow haven't, but really should, "catch on".

I'm not looking to convert anyone to anything. Nobody on the trail needs my advice- unless they're asking- and they certainly don't need my pity because I pack light.

[Travis Leanna]

>I think you will find it riddled with subtle remarks of feeling sorry for those with heavy packs, a touch of elitism about that fact, and a general attitude that these folk somehow haven't, but really should, "catch on".

While I agree with this, I wonder if its really true elitism, where so-and-so simply feels superior because their baseweight is exponentially lighter, or if its a reactionary elitism because so-and-so has in the past been ridiculed by "traditional" backpackers because of their new and strange gear/techniques.

[David Chenault]

Saw these folks in Yellowstone yesterday. From Chicago, out for a five day trip. Ouch! What is in there? I don't care how fit you are, carrying a huge pack is not fun.

I do think that Andy's latest point about backpacking being fundamentally anti-consumeristic, at least at its best, is well taken. What frustrates me about all this is that carrying a light load enhances the backcountry experience in all ways, and is more about bringing less stuff than it is about spending crazy cash on light gear. If that above folks used a tarp, didn't bring extra clothes, only brought the food they'd need, used one pot, etc, etc I'm quite sure their packs would be half the size and weight.

I think that lightweight gear is becoming mainstream as we speak, and doing so on the back of some rather nasty sorts of supefluous consumerism. The upside is that great businesses like MLD stand to profit.

[Scott Truong]

Craig, I think you made a good point in your previous post. A lot of experienced outdoors people really don't care and BP gear is just a means to the end of their main outdoor interest.

For the rest, the ones who walk into MEC or REI for the first time, I just wonder if they knew there were alternatives. I know for myself starting from scratch, knowing I'd be in the elements for long periods, considerations for the "proper" gear can be daunting.

Although even then it made sense to look for the lightest you can get away with. Maybe I am just lazy and have a healthy aversion to pain.

Elitism to me comes more from ability, the routes you take, than the choices you make with your credit card and I think most on here would agree.

And I don't find in absolute terms, with comparable items, UL gear is that much more expensive than traditional gear.

[Thomas Burns]

Craig,

Maybe you're right. It is elitism for some folks.

However, for some of us, it's genuine concern. Most of the folks I run into on the trail are beginners, not experienced backpackers. Here in Ohio, there aren't that many experienced BPers. They get on the trail carrying 45 pounds of stuff, have a bad experience as a result, and sell their gear on Trailspace. End of story.

Beginning of story (here I am indebted to Andy for his "consumerism" point): They walk into their local outfitter, and buy whatever the salesperson tells then to. (See Bill Bryson's book _A Walk in the Woods_ for a description of just such an experience and the sad consequences of that experience.)

My own example: I went to a meeting at my local outfitters of folks who were planning on walking the AT and watched the salepeople praise the folks who had bought their heavy, heavy gear there while they made wee-wee on my lightweight kit.

The folks at that meeting are no longer on the trail, so far as I can tell. I still am.

My concern is that people who buy the heavyweight gear are, for the most part, driven away from BPing in the same way that people are driven away from stargazing because they buy the junk telescopes from WalMart instead of from the smaller firms that make better, more expensive telescopes that are designed to last a lifetime and give spectacular views.

Elitism? Maybe. Concern for the long-term participation of folks in the hobby? You betcha! The point is that I know folks are more likely to stay in the hobby if they have a pleasurable experience the first time rather than a miserable one. So, yes. I give unsolicited advise. More often, people ask me for it because they can see the joy on my face and in my gait.

We are the best advocates of lightweight backpacking if we lead by example. Show folks the joy, and they will follow your lead.

Cordially,

Stargazer

[Lynn Tramper]

The folks who I've seen carrying some of the heaviest loads are also some of the most experienced BPers. And I can understand their point of view, especially in this region of the world where nature can pretty much throw anything at you any time of the year. 2 weeks ago we went on a trip in which we encountered 220kph wind gusts (~135mph) and 240-280mm of rain (8-11 inches) in a space of 24 hours. No UL tarptent that I know of could have withstood those conditions, and even good raingear wets out with that kind of rain hitting you at those speeds. Your stove, windscreen and tent need to be bombproof. Now summer on the JMT is a different kettle of fish, but many of these experienced folks don't want to own multiple tents and stoves and raingear so they can pick and choose. They just want one piece of gear that will cover all conditions they may encounter. I don't feel sorry for them. They have carried those loads for all their BPing lives and can cope just fine. They enjoy themselves just as much as I do, and often get out more than I do. So what's the harm? No, UL BPing hasn't caught on in a big way, but it's not my concern. HYOH.

[Thomas Burns]

You are so right, Lynn. You have to carry the gear that the conditions warrant. Those nice heavy-weight winter BPers should be admired, not criticized.

We almost never see such tornado-level-nastiness in the midwest, and If we occasionally do, I must confess that I will stay at home in my well heated and cozy abode counting my Alocksaks, eating a Clif bar, and watching a backpacking DVD on the old teevee.

Still, the 4-season Scarp Tarptent that I've been lusting after weighs but 44 oz, and my Nunatak Backcountry Blanket, good to 20 degrees (and 10 degrees lower if I add my Heetsheets emergency Bivy) weighs but 20 oz. I can still get out the door in deep winter with 12 pounds on my back.

Given the alternatives, I honestly can't quite figure out why people are still carrying 45 pounds.

Stargazer

[Lynn Tramper]

"We almost never see such tornado-level-nastiness in the midwest, and If we occasionally do, I must confess that I will stay at home in my well heated and cozy abode counting my Alocksaks, eating a Clif bar, and watching a backpacking DVD on the old teevee."

Me too! Problem is that the weather is unpredictable. We would not have been out there if we knew how nasty the weather was gonna be, and thus I respect the old-timers and experienced folks who use gear they can trust in any situation. As it was, we were lucky because we had a hut to fall back on for shelter, but we were nearly caught by rising stream crossings cutting off even that option. It would have been an ugly night otherwise…

[tommy d]

There are two points here that really should be addressed.

First, is the complaint of "elitism." Again, as I mentioned above, that claim is not a response to the concept of lightweight backpacking. It's simply an attack on the people promoting the concept and therefore has not value in this debate. If a person is "elitist" and they think they're better for XYZ reason, that just makes them a crappy person, but it doesn't change the argument. In addition, from my experiences, I have seen no evidence that elitism is any more prevalent in the lightweight backpacking community than the traditional backpacking community. Also, since the trad backpacking community is much larger, for every one elitist is the UL community, there are most likely 10 elitists that say: "I have this bomber [fill in the blank], without which you have no business being on this mountain."

Which leads to the second point: OF COURSE the possible range of conditions that you face must dictate the gear that you bring on a particular trip. If you need a high level of wind or snow protection a 4-season tent may be a requirement. You can't judge the UL weights in a New England summer against a trip to Nepal. Different conditions call for different gear, BUT that doesn't mean that weight shouldn't be considered just because a person is doing a trip in a harsh environment.

For example, if my memory serves me correctly, the famous American mountaineer Ed Viesturs writes about going fast and light when he climbs. I believe there's an interview where he talks about carrying a 45-pack on a 4-day unsupported, alpine-style summit attempt. Also, in his book he mentioned he carries a 0 degree bag (maybe it was a quilt) on his climbs and then uses his clothing when he sleeps. If a super athlete climbing Everest and K2 still bothers to consider weight and can maintain a 45lb pack weight, I don't think it's a bad idea for us mere mortals to consider pack weight too.

There's only one reason why this issue is really something that I care about at all. I remember starting out backpacking in college and spending gobs of money and carrying a sizable pack. Going out in the woods with friends was great, but the backpacking part was a pain – figuratively and literally. I remember what that was like and how over time I realized on my own that I didn't need a cup a bowl and a plate. I realized that I didn't need to buy expensive water bottle and could just use cheap, free bottles. Now, when I see 18yo college students who were doing the same things I was doing, I wonder why in the age of the internet that these ideas haven't gotten to them yet and what can be done to help them travel safely and comfortably, and spend less and be more creative.

I don't think that's a bad or elitist why to think, it seems like a caring way to think. I'm learning every day from people on this forum and in the field. And, if anybody asks, I'm happy to show them what I do and why I do it. I think one of the coolest things about UL philosophy is that we can be creative and that there ISN't one right way to backpack.

If being exposed to UL or ANY other ideas makes a person feel bad and defensive, then that's their own shortcoming. When I teach people as part of my job, I LOVE being questioned, because it shows that the audience is listening and it forces me to consider and explain the subject that we're covering.

Now, I'd like to be able to get back on the topic of examining why UL backpacking hasn't spread more widely. Although, I must say that defensiveness and resistance to new ideas may be a big part of explanation.

[John Vance]

Based on all the chatter on the net at various sites, it would seem that lightweight backpacking has caught on. In spite of this however, I see very little evidence of lightweight backpacking out on the trail. I, like many here on this forum, have evolved over time which for me has been the past 35 years of backpacking. I started out light mostly due to funds and lack of equipment choices in the early 70's and quickly added weight as income and gear choices increased. In 1983 I thru hiked the PCT with a starting pack weight fully loaded for 12 days without resupply in the vicinity of 75lbs and this included gear sharing with my brother. On my feet I proudly wore a pair of Pivetta Article 8's with full metal shanks, full leather inside and out that came in at slightly more than 5lbs for the pair. We were young, fit, and dedicated, but in spite of this by the time we reached the Sierras we were already behind schedule and physically worn out. After scrutinizing what was in and on our packs we jettisoned nearly 35lbs each and changed our philosophy even if we didn't change the gear. We continually reassured each other by repeating the mantra "if you don't have it, you don't need it." We didn't really start replacing our gear with lighter options until we crossed I-80 where my parents met my brother and I with lighter gear and a little R & R at the family cabin in Tahoe.

To me light weight backpacking is as much a philosophy as it is about gear. Certainly gear choices are a limiting factor when it pertains to minimal pack weight, but you don't have to spend a great deal, or even purchase anything new, to enjoy the benefit of a lightweight philosophy and lighter pack. I think that until someone adopts the idea that "less is more" we will see slow growth of lightweight backpackers. Is that a bad thing? I am not sure. I must confess that I enjoy the outdoor solitude and find that if I put 5 to 10 miles and a mountain pass between me and the trailhead, I pretty much have the mountains to myself. I also come across very few backpackers that are under 35 and more than a day from the trailhead. Those I do meet on the trail marvel at my small pack and how long I have been out or am planning to be out. The older hikers I meet are very interested in specific gear choices vs comfort and functionality and are looking to make changes to allow them to keep hiking as they age.

One of the most experienced heavy backpackers I have met on the trail was a gentleman in his 70's toiling under the weight of a huge pack that towered nearly 2 feet over his head. His wife carried a large day pack with just her "essentials" but still estimated that she had 20 lbs in it.. They explained that if something didn't change, this would be their last long trip. As we chatted for over two hours, I displayed the contents of my pack and explained my gear choices and philosophy on backcountry travel, I noticed their eyes sparkle and they repeated looked at each other smiling and nodding. I wrote down the names of web sites and cottage gear manufacturers and my phone number and email address. That was nearly 3 years ago and they are still backpacking going farther and staying out longer. They admitted that it took some convincing but found that they were more comfortable and enjoyed the experience more than they had in years. They told me that their biggest challenge was trusting sil-nylon and "all that mesh" during the first big storm in the new shelter but faired the storm well with "just a little misting when the wind blew the rain sideways". They have since assisted other's in taking a lighter approach simply by going backpacking with them and letting them see the outcome from themselves.

I think the point is that many won't make the change until they are forced to due to injury or pain. Some may just quit backpacking altogether if they are unable to carry their heavy packs and all the "must have" gear. My hiking partner has slowly begun to start enjoying the benefits of lightweight backpacking, but it has been painful for him to change his mind set and he hasn't completely "let go". He told me this past spring while we were out on a trip that since he had been unsuccessful in getting me to slow down and stop talking while going uphill, that he had better join me with a lighter pack. As a side benefit he has been a great source to sell equipment to when I replace any piece of equipment. I do enjoy the full tent he carries…but not for long.

Lightweight backpacking for me is more than just a lighter smaller pack, it is greater freedom, simplicity on the trail, and much more enjoyment of every aspect of being out. Although I do miss my camp chair, I have adapted. Now if I want to add something to my kit I have to shave the weight somewhere else. At a base weight of 9-12lbs – depending on weather and temps – and a total pack weight for a week at or under 20lbs, I don't see getting much lighter at this point. I could easily shave a couple of pounds, but for me going from 20lbs down to 18lbs doesn't feel any different, even if I can calculate the extra energy expended over a 20 mile day.

[Thomas Burns]

>If a person is "elitist" and they think they're better for XYZ reason, that just makes them a crappy person, but it doesn't change the argument.

But, of course, it does. Any rhetorician will tell you that logos is only a part of persuasion. Ethos, the perceived character of the arguer, is just as important. If you don't trust a person (or don't like him or her), you won't buy into an argument despite its devastating logical power.

Thus, I really do believe that any avocation will only "catch on" if its practitioners have a positive ethos, and perceived elitism or paternalism doesn't help that cause (not that I'm saying that these attitudes are prevalent). ;-)

Those whom I have "converted" to UL are persuaded by the fact that I seem to be having a whole lot more fun than they are, not because of the inherent logic of the situation.

So . . . I lightened up, in both senses of the term, and got over my morally serious attitude toward the hobby. As my wife used to remind me, "Remember, this is supposed to be fun. Show it."

Or as I always say to my writing students, "Show. Don't tell."

Stargazer

[Elliott Wolin]

John Vance captured the essence of what I want my interactions with traditional backpackers to be like.

He wrote how he calmly and patiently explained to the older couple he met how lightweight equipment works perfectly well, and that one can be safe and comfortable without having to carry all that weight. The result, it appears, was transformative for the couple, as they seem to have realized that by going lightweight they have many more years of backpacking ahead of them.

This is about as far from elitist as one can get. Such behavior is purely selfless and makes us all look good. We all should follow his lead.

[Lynn Tramper]

I'm not ashamed to admit I'm an elitist in many ways. I don't WANT more people sharing the trails. The more folks who get put off by heavy packs, the better from my selfish perspective. So I make no attempt to convert anyone. A good trip is one where I don't see anyone else besides my hiking buddies. Or to borrow from another thread, people are ruining backpacking :0

[Elliott Wolin]

There are two opposing views concerning getting more people interested in backpacking: 1) all ships rise on the incoming tide, and 2) zero-sum game.

According to the former, the more people interested the more habitat and trails that will be saved or created. According to the latter, more people means more crowded trails.

I prefer to follow the former. Massive amounts of habitat can be permanently lost due to the greed or shortsightedness of others, and silence by us. The more of us the better, in my opinion.

Yes, the most popular places might become more crowded, but BPL'ers are fully capable of seeking out the less crowded and more remote areas, so more crowds at a few areas don't bother me at all.

The alternative is stop increasing the number of areas open to backpacking, and to lose some we already have.

[Author]

Posts