Forum Replies Created
- Jul 5, 2018 at 5:57 am #3545252
Chris Servheen (bear researcher) is a member here, he may be able to provide some insight, but I’m not sure how much he monitors the forums.
Is the reason bears don’t get more of our tree-hung food really due to them not happening to be in the area that night?
Statistics (probability) would offer up a resounding “yes” answer to this question.
However, consider a Yosemite bear and compare it to, say, a less-habituated bear in someplace where fewer people go, like SW Montana.
“Habituation” is the process by which a bear “practices” and “learns” how to do stuff, like steal a bear bag in a tree. Habituation happens when it has lots of opportunities to do so, and occurs more in areas where there are more human-bear interactions. Or, in other words, where human density is high.
I’ve seen “wild bears” in Montana and Alaska look at a canister or bear bag in a tree, and move on. In Yose, no!
So habituation is one thing.
Then you have the nature of the bear itself.
Just a few miles from a campground near Cooke City, I woke up one morning and found lots of fresh (grizzly) bear tracks outside my shelter (a tent). Curious bear, roaming around camp. My food was hung in a tree, tracks below the bag, no weird signs indicating that the bear was trying to get the food.
A few nights later, a (grizzly) bear in the campground tore into a tent and killed a camper and ate part of the body.
Two different bears (most likely). Two different behavior tendencies, histories, or whatever other events led up to one bear leaving my camp alone and the other bear going nuts.
So the explanation that suggests probability (of bear proximity) alone is probably pretty good, but perhaps insufficient.Jun 27, 2018 at 4:36 am #3543991
@triskele – cyndy – in comparing the two side by side, I have observed no differences between send/receive times or ability to get signals in/out from difficult locations (eg in canyons).
I don’t know if the antenna size/strength is the same, but I’ve observed no performance differences anecdotally.Jun 27, 2018 at 4:05 am #3543984
@rex – I can do speech-to-text on my iPhone (SE) without network connections (e.g., in airplane mode or otherwise with “No Service”). Not Siri/Alexa, but it works awfully well. I know the SE processor has to be a bit more powerful (and a much higher battery drain) than what’s in the Garmin inReach Mini, but it seems like speech-to-text can be an option on smaller devices like this.Jun 27, 2018 at 4:03 am #3543982
@stonepitts – Jeffrey – AAA does not offer SMS roadside assistance. It *does* offer SMS updates about the status of roadside assistance once you do request. So the obvious workaround I suppose is you send an SMS with the location attached to someone you know, have them request AAA assistance, and go from there…Jun 24, 2018 at 10:16 pm #3543654
@taedawood – yes – units can be changed in one of the settings menus, either on the device or via the Earthmate app.Jun 21, 2018 at 4:51 pm #3543133
I second Franco’s suggestion to look at the Hogback. Terrific interior space:weight ratio.
Not as “light” as a pyramid shelter that might offer even more floor space, but at the cost of low edges not providing as much usable space as suggested by the surface area, and of course, the pole in the middle that interferes (only a little) with moving around inside.Jun 21, 2018 at 4:48 pm #3543132
Concrete and thin shoes – yeah, my body really screams at that. Interestingly, I can run OK doing this, but walking, and even worse, slow walking on concrete – not good.Jun 20, 2018 at 2:54 pm #3542971
I’m trying to figure out the same thing with the Mini, with no success. So I’ve simply been sharing my login to those with whom I want to share my route.
I’m also exploring the API, and am hoping to hack together something on my own.Jun 17, 2018 at 10:23 pm #3542590
I just returned from a backpacking trip with Josh Leavitt, and he wore Five Fingers on some very impressive, rocky trails.
I have to think there’s hope :)Jun 17, 2018 at 5:28 pm #3542480Jun 17, 2018 at 5:22 pm #3542478
I wish I could put your data into a formula and return a dogmatic solution for you.
I think we’ve all observed the “barefoot revolution” long enough to know that human physiology is extraordinarily complex and it’s very difficult to diagnose root causes of physiological problems.
Maybe there’s a nutritional deficiency, a genetic limitation, an old poorly-healed injury, something limiting your biomechanics elsewhere in the spinal musculoskeletal chain, who knows.
In my own experience in dealing with foot problems, I’ve *always* been able to fully heal my feet by (a) diversifying the footwear I wear (which diversifies the muscles/tendon/ligament stresses) and (b) using highly-cushioned footwear when I have injuries and (c) transitioning back into “minimalist” shoes slowly again.Jun 1, 2018 at 11:01 pm #3539708
We ended up migrating to a different model for our wilderness expeditions.
While we gave everyone some cursory experience with all “roles” on short trips, we had elected / appointed permanent roles on our long expeditions. That is, a crew leader for an expedition was the leader for the entire expedition, etc. We did this for two reasons.
First, the leadership experience gets cemented better when one person is immersed into a single role for several days in a row.
Second, it became a reward for those who took the responsibility and time to practice, study, and earn their role, and earn respect among their peers for being elected to that role.
Our roles were: crew leader, assistant crew leader, navigator, head chef, and quartermaster. Their jobs obviously started months in advance of the expedition.
The crew leader and assistant crew leader were responsibility for managing the entire expedition planning process. They served as proxy members of the food planning, route/itinerary, and equipment committees (splitting those tasks between them). The committees may have included other crew members who didn’t have formal roles/leadership positions.
The chef was responsible for coordinating the menu planning, food buying, and food packaging process, and coordinating the on-trail assignments of group cooking, cleanup, water treatment, and firebuilding (if allowed). All of these roles were shared and rotated by everyone on the trip, and changed every day or two (two or three days for our longest expeditions).
The navigator was responsible for coordinating the route and itinerary planning process prior to the expedition, and the on-trail responsibility of actually navigating and/or making the final decisions regarding navigating and campsite selection with the crew leader.
The quartermaster was responsible for managing all pre-trip equipment plannning, including outfitting all crew gear, building the mandatory personal gear lists, holding our pre-trip gear inspections, and assigning crew gear carry assignments on the trail, distributing group gear in the mornings as/if needed.
As we increased the skill level of our expeditions, our crew gravitated away from the patrol method and its authoritative structures and towards a more cooperative team environment, which works much better for maintaining morale during longer, more difficult high adventure treks. So having well-defined roles that were focused on function rather than authority were much better for interpersonal and team morale.May 30, 2018 at 10:23 pm #3539309
- quilts are more comfortable (more room to move around and get comfortable).
- bags keep me warmer when it’s “cold”
Here’s a how-to article getting the most out of your quilt.
My decision framework for making the choice for quilt vs. bag is *generally* this:
Will the forecast on most nights during my trip be below freezing but above 15 or so?
- If yes, then am I packing a puffy hoody and puffy pants?
- If yes, then I take a 20 degree quilt.
- If no, then I take a 10 or 15 degree bag.
- If no, then I take a 20 degree quilt if the low forecast is below freezing, and a 40 degree quilt if it’s above freezing.
This is a very general framework. It’s doesn’t consider the more complicated situations where I may bring a synthetic outer quilt in a 2-layer system (mostly for early season wet weather and cold conditions on glacier mountaineering trips), or when the forecasted low temperatures are either colder than the teens or warmer than the 60s. Or when I’m on a very long trip and “every ounce counts more…”May 20, 2018 at 5:21 am #3536801
@satori wrote: “A friend of mine has expressed interest in backpacking in the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness of Montana. He knows a long-term resident who fishes in that area, and it sounds like a good place to carry, along with bear spray.”
This is the home are for the Wilderness Adventures Program, and I can’t imagine a “need” to carry a gun here.
Grizzly density is low where we do the BPL treks, but higher in the rest of the range, especially along the N, E, and S borders of YNP, and of course, in YNP. I’ve seen a lot of (grizzly) bears here in the past 25 years. Charged by a few of them. Discharging bear spray repelled one, holding up the can and / or waving my hands and yelling like a madman repelled the rest! Such is the nature of being an introvert and having a passion for bushwhacking.
I’ve owned guns but am not super passionate about hunting, defense from grizzly attacks, or self-defense, and am not up to date on guns. However, The Kel-Tec P3AT (.380) is one of the most remarkable little weapons I’ve ever seen or used, and it’s kind of mind-blowing what you can do with something so light. I might lean that direction if I was looking for something for “ultralight self-defense”. Of course, something like this is useless against a grizzly bear probably, but I like my odds with bear spray better (or a shotgun).
But back to the subject at hand, which seems to be based on some amount of fear, and the low probability that something bad will happen.
I think I’d lean away from carrying a gun, especially if I had a fear of them. And if I felt like I needed one, I’d get really intimate and comfortable and “not fearful” of them before I actually carried one on a regular basis.May 20, 2018 at 5:00 am #3536798
I’ve had a 7d EE quilt for almost two years now. No holes, no patches, no issues.
I’ve used it pretty hard – it’s my “mountaineering” quilt. Sometimes in a bivy sack, sometimes under a pyramid tarp (with a very thin ground cloth, like a polycro).
I’m much harder on my insulated jackets than I am on my quilts, so 7d seems like a good option for a quilt unless (maybe?) you are forgoing a ground cloth, which I do on occasion.May 20, 2018 at 4:55 am #3536797
Yeah, these are pretty good quality, they don’t feel like most Chinese cheapies. Amazing spec:price ratio. A little on the heavier side ( > 3 oz 😂) but the brightness is pretty incredible.May 20, 2018 at 4:48 am #3536796
I’ve used both Katabatic and EE quilts extensively. I like the vertical baffles of the EE. I like the draft collar of the Katabatic. I like the pad connection design of the Katabatic better when used with an inflatable pad, like a NeoAir. I like the foot box of the EE. I like the customizability and fabric options of the EE.
If I were ordering a brand new quilt right now, it would be an EE because I appreciate the custom options.
But my Katabatics (Alsek, Chisos) are just a little (and I do mean: only a little) bit nicer in terms of construction quality, fill/puffiness, and pad integration.
So there you go. A totally indecisive answer. Good luck!!May 17, 2018 at 11:24 pm #3536318
If anyone else is seeing issues, please post here. I just finished testing on an iPad mini a few minutes ago, Chrome and Safari, and everything looked fine.
This screenshot looks like an incomplete page load – ie, the page load was interrupted somehow and the styles didn’t finish loading / processing by the browser.
Post here @jonfong if this issue recurs consistently for you.Apr 25, 2018 at 7:53 pm #3532202
Regarding DWR, it’s worth clearing up a few things.
Apr 7, 2018 at 2:57 pm #3529242
- There is no C6 or any other DWR treatment on the outside face of this fabric. The outside face (polyester fiber + polymer adhesive nonwoven layer) is hydrophobic, but not in the surface tension sense. It’s hydrophobic in that there is no “structure” or “interstitial spaces” (like on a woven nylon or polyester) where water can creep in and wet out the surface. Water does not “bead” up on the surface like it does with a DWR-treated surface. That said, the outside face of the fabric does get “wet” but it doesn’t “wet out” like a woven, a few shakes of the jacket or wiping off the surface with a cloth leaves an almost imperceptibly thin film of water only, and this dries very fast when it’s not raining. Importantly, this doesn’t really impact breathability. Contrary to popular belief, a layer of water on the outside face of a fabric doesn’t “dramatically” inhibit the transport of water vapor molecules through a WPB membrane. Rescue swimmers wearing WPB dry suits who spend long times submerged in the water report that during periods of high activity, they sweat, and in periods of low activity, they dry out. Makes sense – you’re not pushing water drops through the WPB membrane, you’re driving molecules. Wetted out face fabrics are problematic for body heat loss, because the “wetter” (more water) in your clothing, the more body heat is lost to drive the evaporation of that water.
- There is a C6 fluorocarbon DWR treatment on the inside surface of the eVENT membrane – the surface that faces the body. The purpose of this DWR is to avoid wet out of the eVENT membrane due to perspiration and condensation of water vapor. My experience so far has been that this is a very durable treatment when applied directly to the inside of an eVENT membrane. Even after extended wear of this jacket that has included sweating in it, wearing heavy packs, etc., the C6 is holding up well. Now, I haven’t tested it in the context of being a grossly dirty thru-hiker, so … FWIW.
Hi Doug – details can be found in the Forum Guidelines in the “Commercial Interests” section.Apr 6, 2018 at 7:41 pm #3529084
Richard, are these stereoscope images? What are you using?
I’ve been thinking about upgrading my stereoscope to something that is digital so I can capture water movement in textiles with video.Apr 6, 2018 at 7:35 pm #3529083
I can’t believe I’m lumped into their oldest age category. Ugh.
The sharp edges on the Bearikade – yes – I have caused some damage to packs with this as well.
But there’s not a lot to improve on this canister, I’m very happy with mine.
My favorite bear can is an Ursack, however.
So I’ll use either one depending on where I’m hiking and what’s approved.
Can any weight be shaved off the Bearikade and still meet approval? Probably not likely, it would have to come in the form of thinner carbon walls. I watched some of these tests at the Grizzly Discovery Center in West Yellowstone, those grizzlies have some strong jaws, it’s remarkable.
The Bearikade is expensive and light, and works great.
The BV is cheap and heavier, and works great.
Seems like the three options we have cover most of the market, so this “new” canister will have to have a pretty compelling reason to compete:
1. as light as a Bearikade but cheaper;
2. as cheap as a BV but lighter.
3. as light and compact as an Ursack but approved everywhere.
When we start talking about stool comfort, easier closures, or adhesion of your favorite stickers, seems like an uphill battle for a marketer and a market that may not exist for a designer if it doesn’t address one of #1 to #3 above.*
(* or have an Arc’teryx logo on it, maybe, which might open up a whole new lifestyle bear canister market)Apr 6, 2018 at 7:22 pm #3529082
My favorite part of this discussion is that you are calling the transition to a simpler and less expensive product an “upgrade”.
Awesome.Mar 28, 2018 at 3:43 am #3527444
Years ago when we were looking at insulation for the old Cocoon UL line, I tested some Lamilite vs. unlaminated insulation (same insulation). There seemed to be a bit of loft degradation (20-25%?) that was a direct result of the lamination process. That, combined with a little bit of additional weight resulting from the lamination process itself (not sure why it was heavier), made Lamilite a poor warmth:weight ratio insulation.
Again, at the time – 10 years ago or so. Not sure what it’s like now, perhaps (hopefully) improved?
I did like that the insulation was somewhat stabilized – much better than loose batting. But I don’t know how it affected durability.
However, I think lamination benefits might be negated at the lightest weight end of the spectrum, after taking apart a Micro Puff and looking at the PlumaFill batts. Seems like that thread patterning actually works pretty darn well for stabilizing the batts. For thicker insulated jackets, you wouldn’t want sewn-through stitching so lamination might be a good way to go?
Anecdote: I did receive a *new* Wiggy’s bag from a BPL member about the same time, he had me inspect it because he thought it was too flat for the insulation weight. I remember thinking that the loft on it was pretty low for the insulation used.
Mar 28, 2018 at 12:43 am #3527418
- This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Ryan Jordan.
Also, a huge thanks to everyone for the overwhelming response to the podcast – we debuted on iTunes today in the Top 10 (#5!) and our download stats have exceeded our wildest expectations. Enjoy the podcast, we’ve already started working on the next two episodes :)