Jun 5, 2007 at 9:53 pm #1223546
@eaglembLocale: AZ, the Great Southwest!
Somewhere I recall reading a simple relationship between backpack weight and speed, but was unable to find it on BPL.
Does anyone know of any pointers to such findings?
MikeBJun 5, 2007 at 10:08 pm #1391326
Doug JohnsonBPL Member
@djohnsonLocale: Washington State
Golite used to have something like that. Now they have only this: http://www.golite.com/About/why.aspx?e=0 Bottom line, weight goes down, speed, mileage, and fun goes up!
I absolutely believe that there is a clear relationship between weight and speed and also weight and mileage. I have loads of qualitative data (people's stories) and my experience to back that up. However, I think there are too many variables in the equation (such as fitness, nutrition, elevation, attitude, weather, etc) to have a clean 1 to 1 correlation (at least in a quanitative sense, which would create a simple numerical relationship), at least in a truly scientific sense.
BUT if you find something that's clear, I'd love to see it!
DougJun 5, 2007 at 10:23 pm #1391329
Like the "More-On" label associated with the heavy pack.Jun 5, 2007 at 11:25 pm #1391333
Ben 2 WorldBPL Member
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
Assuming a "simple relationship" between pack weight and speed is tantamount to saying that speed is determined primarily or solely by weight alone. That makes no sense to me.
Sometimes, I hike light so I can hike at a more relaxed pace — slowing down purposely to enjoy the scenery, to take a few pictures, etc. With a heavier pack, all I want to do is to keep going just so I can reach camp and unload!
Perhaps I misunderstood the question???Jun 5, 2007 at 11:36 pm #1391334
@havocLocale: North Texas
Ray Jardine's Pacific Crest Trail Hikers Handbook might have want you are looking for. One of the 1st chapters is titled "The Pyramid of Hiking Style". It relates hiking with 8 days between resupplies. If you were to hike 17 miles a day at 2.75 miles per hour, you would hike for 6.2 hours per day. If we hike just 1.5 hours longer per day the daily mileage would increase to just over 21 miles per day. At 21 miles per day we would only need resupply every 6.5 day. We could then take out a corresponding amount of food and fuel and hike a little further every day still arriving in camp with equal fatigue. And so on…..Page 26 of Pacific Crest Trail Hikers Handbook. Hope this helps.Jun 6, 2007 at 6:01 am #1391348
@eaglembLocale: AZ, the Great Southwest!
Thanks. I'm looking for some source that could show a dozen 2008 Philmonters that it makes sense to invest in lightweight gear, ie.; a 110 kid with a 45 lb pack can't possibly (IMHO) keep up with a the same carrying a 25 lb bag.
MikeBJun 6, 2007 at 6:51 am #1391352
John S.BPL Member
@jshannJun 6, 2007 at 7:20 am #1391356
You can still hike fast with a heavy pack.. but consider the Suffer Factor, Fs;
pack Wt(lb) x MPH = Fs
You can reduce the Suffer Factor by reducing weight, or reducing speed, or both. Or, you can keep up with a guy with a lighter pack by increasing your own Fs tolerance (eg Army road marches)Jun 6, 2007 at 7:29 am #1391359
Adam RothermichBPL Member
@aroth87Locale: Missouri Ozarks
Speaking of Army road marches… My roommate is in Army ROTC and they often go out and do marches and FTX's and such. He always complains to me how in the Army they have to carry a certain weight in their packs and if they don't make that weight they just throw some extra stuff into it. Seems to me carrying less weight would mean they could march farther/for a longer period of time. Maybe all this UL backpacking I've been doing has biased me some how…
Sorry for going so far off topic there, I felt the need to share my amusing (to me, anyway) story.
AdamJun 7, 2007 at 1:26 pm #1391543
Jason BrinkmanBPL Member
Hmmm, I recall a weight vs distance discussion on here (related to speed I guess). I thought it was a theoretical discussion about maximum unsupported range. Maybe by Dr J? I'll do some digging.Jun 7, 2007 at 2:10 pm #1391549
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.