To say that the lightweight backpacking movement has fostered a broader trend within the outdoor industry would be a grand understatement. Indeed, one could now make the uncontroversial argument that claims about "lightness" have reached a point where the term-like other outdoor marketing buzzwords-means very little when it comes to evaluating a particular product, manufacturer, or retailer. From backpacks to apparel, the term 'lightweight' has been repackaged within the mainstream outdoor market without a meaningful context or clear definition. Fewer features, standard fabrics, and a tiny reduction in overall weight are sold as 'lightweight' shellwear. Thinner tents in the same traditional designs are produced by major manufacturers, and every small accessory you've ever owned now has 'lightweight' printed on the packaging. Avoiding a real need for education, the fundamental skills and techniques of lightweight hiking are still largely dismissed as fringe interests while the language of our approach has been warmly adopted and worked, without much concern, into technical doublespeak.
After six years work in the outdoor industry with the intent to promote and develop lightweight within the broader market in whatever way I could, I'm very partial to an approach that builds an alternative gear market. As a salesperson, my hope that major outdoor brands would get serious about lightweight hiking disappeared with the release of each new 'lightweight' product range that was less than substantial. Although the situation varies from country to country, I believe those lightweight hikers who remain optimistic regarding the mainstream industry do not have many reasons to be very encouraged about a more meaningful acceptance of the lightweight approach, despite recent developments toward real innovation within the wider market. Overall, economic woes have continued to drive larger American and British producers toward the nontechnical consumer and greater consolidation, while those manufacturers focused on Australia and New Zealand (with a few exceptions) have continued to stagnate to the point of being thoroughly out of touch with wider trends.
Standing in brilliant opposition to these market realities is the emergence and rise of cottage lightweight manufacturers, MYOG promoters, and small independent retailers. Not only has the development of the cottage industry meant the availability of gear that meets the immediate needs of lightweight hikers, but it has also resulted in other positive outcomes: greater communication between producer and consumer (in contrast to the often confused looks and hostile replies encountered when the specific requirements of lightweight hikers are brought up with major trade representatives); an ethical commitment to 'buying local' and 'within the community'; and the sense that one is buying a product of handmade quality.
So what does one do when a noble commitment to supporting smaller enterprises starts to look like blind faith rather than a reasonable response to an unresponsive market? As Ryan Jordan has noted in his Cottage Stagnation and Recent Gems article, the margin of advantage held by cottage brands over the mainstream is quickly narrowing as cottage producers struggle to maintain a combination of high product quality, innovation, aesthetic appeal, higher-volume production, and acceptable customer service. A year and a half since that critique and little has changed. The success of a few operations that now seem poised to straddle the divide between cottage popularity and serious production has been encouraging, but significant developments have not yet eventuated.
With these realities in mind, what kind of consumer commitment should we make to drive change in the market? That is, as a community, should we take a position on the kinds of businesses that garner our support? Depending on our choices, we could be responsible for the death of cottage production as a viable alternative or, on the other hand, patronizing big manufacturers could likely result in the further dilution of the lightweight philosophy due to the overwhelming ability these organizations have to pursue technical innovation and drive consumer behavior.
There is, I think, a middle way between these two possibilities. However, it is not simply taking a more critical tone toward cottage production or running enthusiastically into the arms of corporate outdoor manufacturers and retailers when minor concessions are made toward lightweight backpacking philosophy. In order to generate a discussion regarding the broader issues at stake, I suggest the following two strategies should be adopted: Support the decentralization of the outdoor industry
Buying from cottage manufacturers is preferable, but it isn't enough. The lightweight community should bring about the greater decentralization of the outdoor industry as a whole by supporting smaller retailers (not just those making gear); larger companies developing innovative products and doing business in ways that are in line with lightweight backpacking philosophy; and opposing the chokehold a few major corporations have on the market. One identifiable problem is the dominance of US-based enterprises, cottage or corporate. A diverse outdoor market requires products that are appropriate to the local climate and terrain as a global matter. Australians buying from American cottage manufacturers won't fix that problem, but a more decentralized industry would address such issues. Moreover, but supporting innovation and quality first and foremost, we will drive innovation in a way that even the largest corporations cannot manage alone.
Build a more comprehensive lightweight hiking philosophy; this is not a new idea, but one that is critical in order to develop a meaningful market for lightweight gear. Lightweight means more than counting ounces and grams, and our approach to gear should recognize that and take a critical approach to how the term is employed. Quality should be critically important, durability shouldn't get lost in the mix, and technical marketing should be as accurate as possible. Additionally, we shouldn't let technical concerns override other considerations. I'd like to see ethical issues (environmental sustainability and labor standards, for example) become as important to lightweight backpacking philosophy as pack weight. The concept of lightweight has already been expanded and explored beyond backpacking, and the continuation of this approach will only enhance our perspective.
Should we continue to buy from cottage manufacturers? Absolutely. But the emphasis on cottage production ensures that we continue to ask the wrong questions. We should buy quality gear that doesn't weigh much, but we should do so cognizant of the future we want for the lightweight hiking philosophy and the outdoor industry at large.
ARTICLE OUTLINE
# WORDS: 1070
# PHOTOS: 1
Member Exclusive
A Premium or Unlimited Membership* is required to view the rest of this article.
* A Basic Membership is required to view Member Q&A events
Discussion
Become a member to post in the forums.
Do people seek solutions that are substitutes for skill and experience?
….
Bottom line… There is a plethora of good quality lightweight gear available today. This endless search for the perfect item for each piece of grear to create the nirvana of kit is just plain rediculous.
I think people should forget about what is best and just get out and hike a lot. That is the bottom line, isn't it?
…..
^^^^ whuddah he said
there are very few "innovative" gear … show me one specific piece of gear BPLers use that are truly "innovative" … and ill show you someone else who is going harder, longer, stronger, more who doesnt use that piece of "must have" gear …
at best gear is incremental … things get marginally lighter,marginally stronger, etc … while the aggregate can make somewhat of a difference over time … whether you use last years model, or this years marginally lighter shiny new one doesnt make one whit of difference except n your spreadsheet
the very few truly "innovative" gear designs are quickly copied … witness the MEC $25 dollar patacucci fleece copies (which arent really "innovative" themselves) that work just as well …
what is "innovative" then ??? … its how you USE your gear, and what you DO with it …
as to "cottage" … what in the world does that mean … there are "cottage" makers out there that make their gear in china, while there are "mainstream" makes out there that make most of their gear in the western world …
buy gear that works, is backed up by a solid warranty, is at the price and weight you want, and USE it well …
i mean what most people are doing here is walking on trails … mostly in pretty good weather … some ole grandma did that decades ago just fine without all this "cottage" or outdoursy brand stuff at a very light weight …
basically most of us have devolved lower than a 1950s grandma … where we need all the fancy gear to do what she did in Keds sneakers and carrying an army blanket, a raincoat, and a plastic shower curtain which she carried in a homemade bag slung over one shoulder"
;)
Having said that I have long felt that a crowdsourced approach to building an ultralight data logger sized GPS device with the ability to display locations in multiple coordinate systems would be a great project.
earl
The interest in the product is incredible. They met and surpassed their financing goal in less than a week.
Crowd sourcing is just a scam by wannabes who don’t have a viable product that can secure financing through traditional means.
One of the problems in traditional manufacturing (and publishing), is that established companies want to keep their foot in the door and keep out any upstarts who might steal their parcel of land. Manufacturers will often (usually?) not give a new and unknown innovator the time of day. So many new ideas are simply lost along the way and no one ever sees them. Sidestepping the weeding out process and getting a product out there often gives new ideas a chance that otherwise never even get seen. Often the entrenched evaluation of those reviewing new ideas fail to see the value in something new. Much of the world of design and publishing is littered with rejection slips and overflowing slush piles, not all of which are bad design or bad stories.
It is important to distinguish between running a successful business and coming up with brilliant designs and ideas. They are not necessarily inclusive of each other.
I’m struck by your disdain and dismissal, Nick. Why so harsh?
“I’m struck by your disdain and dismissal, Nick. Why so harsh?”
Yes, I guess I was a bit harsh.
I am a businessman. I have run, bought, started, and sold several businesses in my lifetime. None failed — actually all were very successful. Since something like 50% of all new business ventures in the US fail within 3 years, I think that is a good record. Most businesses fail because they are under-capitalized and/or the owners have no idea what they are doing.
It is one thing to come up with a great idea. It is another thing to come up with a great idea AND successfully execute it.
I did some research last year and Kickstarter’s own stats show that 87% of their projects do not deliver on time. Pretty dismal results.
To launch a product you need to have the idea. Then you need prototypes to test the theory. Now you need a business plan. In manufacturing you need design engineers and manufacturing engineers to ensure the product can successfully be mass produced. You need to be ability to handle liability problems, errors and omissions, product defects, quality assurance, fulfillment processes, concern resolution, accounting, etc., etc.
It is interesting to watch Roger Caffin and his product development projects. Roger is a smart guy, so he see the obstacles ahead of time. That is why an existing manufacturer is making his tent. He realizes that even with his sophisticated equipment, he cannot economically and consistently produce his stove prototypes yet. The design is not conducive to mass production at this point without some serious investment in equipment and materials.
There are tons of savvy investors and venture capitalists that are always looking to fund products. Products where both the developer and the investor can be successful. That is because the investors have teams of experts that know how to successfully launch a product or start a business.
For more thoughts, Brother Can You Spare a Dime.
I have a Gregory pack I bought in '97. The model was a few years old at the time. It has two straps that run under the bottom of the pack.
The two straps can be used to secure a foam mat. They can also be used to tighten up (reduce volume) the rump of the pack. The bottom front/back of the bag are brought together. This is handy when not much is in the bag; the load is raised.
Is this the type of bottom compression strap Golite and MLD use?
Davey Jones
> Actually, I was surprised to see that he has adopted bottom compression straps similar to the Golite Jam packs and those available from MLD.
Tanner,
Not exactly. These compression straps only serve to reduce volume and will not carry gear.
Here is a pic of the Golite Jam:
I see.
The Gregory straps run from the bottom of the back panel, across the.. bottom, and then join the front panel. The whole bottom can be pinched shut. Clothes or small stuff fit in the wedge created. A sleeping bag is moved up 5 or so inches.
Here is a pic of what Mchale is doing posted from the Mchale website to give you an even better look at the feature.
My large packs from the 70s, 80, and 90s could do this. I simply adopted it from my own past since it is back in vogue now. All of my older Alpineers from those years had the hardware for this. Plus, my current hardware allows somebody to carry gear down there as well as compress, like my old packs did, so again, it is inaccurate to say I adopted it from GoLite or MLD. Compressing the bottom of a pack is nothing new. It is something I quit doing in the later 90s to simplify packs. The way I do it now is simply a lighter way than I once did it.
You had mentioned previously that this was something "new" that you had added.
I guess what's old is new again and innovation recycles itself.
The best products for YOU are the ones that YOU make for yourself.
Making your own gear is the epitome of the lightweight philosophy and self sufficiency.
"The best products for YOU are the ones that YOU make for yourself."
Says you. While MYOG is great. Everyone does not like making things that can be purchased rather easily. By the time you factor in your time honing your design and materials for prototypes etc.. A lot of these cottage guys are selling pretty cheaply.
We can see from the fossil record that in the "Bronze Age" of backpacking we had a choice of Kelty or Camp Trails for backpacks. Then came Gerry's innovative modular frame pack. Then Jensen's frameless compartmentalized pack, then The North Face Ruthsack internal frame. Then Gregory, Mountainsmith, etc., etc.
Now we have some good European and Aussie packs PLUS the many packs from US and foreign cottage industries and small makers like GoLite.
WHAT "greater consolidation" of the backpacking industry, pray tell is the author referring to??
Shall I go on about tents now as a further example of production and design proliferation? No, I'll spare our gentle readers that trouble.
Innovation in lightweight gear runs into a basic fact; there are two ways to reduce an item's weight.
1) use less material in the item's construction.
2) use lighter materials.
There are no other ways to do it. So once you simplify and reduce the size of an item as far as possible (thus reducing the amount of material) and use the lightest material available that will do the job, you can't go any further until a new, lighter material is developed. And in the ultralite gear world, that means waiting for some other industry to come up with that lightweight material, since our market is so small that it doesn't pay to develop materials just for it – we have to adapt stuff that is created for other uses. Thus, the lightest canister stoves hover around 1.5 ounces for now because you just can't remove any more material without compromising the utility of the stove. Maybe you could get under an ounce if cost was no object and elusive alloys were utilised, but that pushes the cost up to where it won't sell.
So innovative design mostly happens in that area somewhat above the lightest weight end of the spectrum, where there is still room for "features" (and features always add weight). To get into SUL and XSUL base weights you basically forgo features and minimalism controls the design. When you are carrying a total packweight of 15 lbs, with food and water and everything, your pack can be a stuffsack with straps and still work fine, so that's what the SUL packs tend towards, and there's no room for innovation in a Cuben stuffsack with straps – any innovation you make adds weight. But a little further up the spectrum there is room in the weight budget for pockets and other conveniences, and the need for appropriate suspension design, and so innovation can happen, but it is always restrained by the two basic weight reduction constraints.
Innovation can also be using a material that nobody else has yet used for that particular purpose, and that generally involves increased cost – as with Cuben and titanium taking the place of nylon and aluminum.
It seems like there is a lot of hope that some new design for a tent will magically be lighter while using the same materials, but it just doesn't happen. We don't have lighter tents today because of innovative design so much as because of lighter materials and in some cases simply smaller size.
With all of that said I do think there is room for improvement in some of the gear that is available, which is why I still make some of my own gear. I make my own packs because I think mine are better for my use than what I can buy. But I wouldn't make my own tent for 3-season use since I know I can't do any better than Henry Shires does or a few others. I might make my own spring snow-camping shelter because I don't see what I need on the market – not surprising for a niche so tiny.
And that is truly the key here – size of market. When the market is truly tiny and product development is expensive, that's when you don't see innovation because it doesn't pay. Ultralight gear hovers on the edge of that equation.
I realize I'm veering into rant territory here, but basically I wanted to point out that if we want to foster innovation we had better be clear on the factors that affect it and constrain it so that we can at least attempt to push where the pushing will be effective.
Nick, the time you spend congratulating yourself on this forum is impressive. If you truly are the midas golden touch,I would suspect less of that behavior, let's talk about your failures you are trying to compensate for. I relate to you and I will relate to you much more if we can come together on business failures, bad ideas, etc.
"Innovation in lightweight gear runs into a basic fact; there are two ways to reduce an item's weight."
It this the only goal?
David Ure, (Davy Jones) said,
"I can say Dan McHale is an innovator."
David likes my stuff so much he is using one of my photographs as his avatar. I'm flattered Dave! Where is that lake David?
>"And that is truly the key here – size of market. When the market is truly tiny and product development is expensive, that's when you don't see innovation because it doesn't pay. Ultralight gear hovers on the edge of that equation."
Paul: Agreed. Until you get to REI's shelves, it's really hard to make price points and get the exposure that would bring in more customers.
I see sustainability people in my area partnering with homesteader types, off-the-gridders, organic-food advocates, and preppers because they are all into locally-grown food for their own reasons.
When I was looking for a youtube on the Vargo Hexagon wood stove, half of them were by UL types but the other half was by preppers.
We've got some authors right on this website doing great research and write-ups but then preaching to the choir. How about submitting articles to Field & Stream and Backwoodsman Magazines? – those guys will spend big bucks if it could marginally help them bag a trophy deer or survive the coming zombie hordes.
Sometimes people are driven by financial reward (let's call that the "Nick" crowd)
But sometimes people are driven by intelectual curiosity
James,
I don't understand what your point is.
My point is that most start up businesses fail. You can look at failure in many ways; missing adequate ROI, product failures, missing product delivery time forecasts, or even dissolution of the company. Rates run the range of 40% – 95% in the FIRST year, depending upon your definition of success.
Even Kickstarter admits that their projects are late 87% of the time (I got this fact off the their website last year).
How do you know a product will even do what the start up person says it will do? What recourse do you have if it doesn't work as advertised? How do you know the person has a successful track record in product development.
With crowdfunding you are not investing in a company, you are taking a risk the product will work. The buyers are taking the risk, usually not the product developer. Also look at the low level contributions… these really fall into the realm of donations or charity.
If I want to donate money to someone, I will give my money to organizations that help children or to cure disease; not someone who has a dream, cannot fund it or is unwilling to risk their own money, or cannot find funding through conventional methods.
Do I want to give my money to someone who MIGHT be able to make some new gizmo that we really don't need, or a child who has suffered some tragedy beyond the control of the parents or family?
If I want to invest money, I will invest in a company that has a good chance of being successful and returning a significant profit to me in return for my risk — and I know how to analyze those opportunities. Crowdfunding does not present these kinds of opportunities. If I am interested in a new product I will wait until it comes to market and is shown to be successful.
Jerry, you misspelled intellectual. That's a no no. :>)
"But sometimes people are driven by intelectual curiosity."
Did anyone notice that Davy Jones and Dan McHale have the same avatar? What's up with that? Maybe it's because their first names start with the same letter? Maybe Dave forgot where he got it? Maybe Dave doesn't do enough hiking to take his own photos?
Hi Trace.
Ha!
Bad analogy, Midas starved to death.
What are you getting at now my brilliant friend?
If I was intelectual, I'de know how to spell it : )
That's weird, after I hit refresh button, DJs avatar switched from squid face to mountain lake and DM from a different scene to the same mountain lake
This is so confusing that people are constantly changing names and avatars : )
"Bad analogy, Midas starved to death."
But not Midas Mulligan.
Become a member to post in the forums.