stupid-light-not-always-right-or-better/

[wayno]

Ten- or fifteen-thousand miles ago I believed fervently that “light is right” and “lighter is better.” I proudly considered myself a “lightweight,” “ultralight” or “super ultralight” backpacker, and I believed that the weight of my pack was linearly correlated with the quality of my experience — the lighter my pack got, the better the hiking became.

But in my blind pursuit to shed weight, I made decisions that compromised my efficiency, thus negatively impacting my trips. In other words, in an effort to “go light” I ended up going “stupid light.”
http://andrewskurka.com/2012/stupid-lig ... or-better/

[Franco]

At some point going light started to be a competitive obsession.
LW->UL->SUL->XUL....
There were guys boasting that their big 4 were at one pound or less ALL UP...
So in the end it had very little to do with hiking it was just a competition.
Reminds me of the guys that write a poem on a grain of rice.


This is the kind of item that amuses me.
Seen often at BackpackingLight, 5'x8', tarps


The tarp is aesthetically beautiful, very light at 210g and well made but what exactly is the point of using that ?
Pitched as it is does not offer any wind protection whatsoever, and almost no rain protection (mild drizzle on a calm night may just be OK)
Pitch that low and you will have condensation dripping on you most of the time and of course no matter how you set it up, no bug protection or privacy.

I have seen a couple of mates using something like that and as soon as there was some "weather" they headed for the nearest hut...
Franco

Franco

[wayno]

any obsessive compulsive can keep trimming grams till there isnt enough kit left to be sensible.... the skill is trimming whats not needed and keeping what is for the intended trip...
as the comments indicate theres also "stupid heavy", which i've done plenty of,,, winter expedition gear on a short summer trip....
and also "stupid cheap" buying gear that isnt up to the intended task compared to what could be purchased for more money..

its so complicated now, when i started buying gear in the eighties there was basically a stock standard kit you bought. it was generally mid to heavyweight stuff. not much choice at all.... bush shirts, locally assembled generic full grain leather boots.... i was still in a pvc coat...
the gear was made for generic rough new zealand bush bashing trips..... i didnt consider about saving weight,
but now the choices you have especially with online shopping are mind boggling, you see weights of gear listed online and its easy to go shopping based on saving weight...
you see some item that captures your imagination because its the lightest of its kind you've ever seen or lighter than you would think possible and you think that would be great going that light, so much lighter than you have been able to go in the past.... i go have some ultralight gear. but it only gets used in certain conditions, i have heavier gear as my default... going ultra light is more of a bonus rather than a given on a trip for me...
i have done a certain amount of gram counting in replacing gear, i've saved a few kilos on my pack weight, i could have gone lighter but stayed in the weight range that felt safer. as it is i might find some of the gear won't last as i would like, if that happens , when the time comes to replace the light gear i'll make a decision on what weight of item to replace it with....
hard to know since the materials and technology of various outdoor gear items has improved over the years and you can be getting the same durability and performance from a lighter item than you would have purchased in the past. who'd have thought you could get wind breakers at around the 50gram mark? and raincoats under 200 grams but the new technology isnt perfect, still has its limitations, in the future i guess more weight will be shaved from gear and you'll have to weigh up whether the gear is going to be up to the task for what you require of it...
its a lot harder choosing the right gear than it used to be.. no one wants to take to too much gear, or too little. just have to do your homework to work out what's right for you

[Franco]

A common problem I see is not taking into consideration of the intended purpose, both from a gear point of view , (what was this item designed for ?) and the user point of view (why do I hike and when/where)
So for example you see expedition tents (3 to 6kg) recommended to SOLO hikers wanting to do the Appalachian trail and then you see hammocks offered as a solution to couples or individuals hiking over the tree line.

Some UL/SUL types are really trail runners not backpackers at all.
So no point comparing the kit of someone that is moving for 18 hours a day and often re-supplied to the typical 10-20kg a day walker.
Then you see the "why have a mat ? just use duff " or "no point of having a rain jacket, you get wet anyway" and comments of that kind betraying a very limited walking environment that all too often does not apply to others.
Franco

[Moondog55]

While I have often done stoopid heavy and a time or two done stoopid cheap I have always thought XXXXXL lite a stoopid idea.
BUT
Lightest weight for the intended route and conditions makes good sense tho, you reach a point of diminishing returns with any system until the next qyantum jump in technologies makes you rethink gear and systems.
like the change in textiles from cotton canvas to silnylon for tents or polyester micro-fibres for underwear and clothing.

[Mark F]

For many of us there is a "right weight". It is based on experience and experimentation. "Stupid light" is self explanatory - stupid - and most of us light weight walkers have been there as part of the experimentation. It is characterised by discomfort and/or having no ability to cope with reasonably foreseeable adverse conditions/events leading to safety issues.

There is also "stupid-heavy" where the weight you carry detracts from your enjoyment of the trip or involves carrying gear that is not going to be used even in the most extreme events.

For me and the conditions, places I walk in and required comfort level, my right weight is between 4 and 4.5kg base weight. This has covered 30cm of snow in mid summer and prolonged rain and severe thunder storms and I have come though unscathed. I have only achieved this after many trips and plenty of experimentation. Ultimately people need to find their own "right weight" as this is the sweet spot where they maximise their enjoyment and don't compromise their safety.

When I walked with SUBW & KBC in the 70s there was a trend at one point to take booze and no evening meal. The booze was then bartered for food on Saturday night on the basis that this approach was lighter. The "hard man" pack was a Paddy Pallin Bunyip day pack with sleeping bag, ground sheet and a small billy - light weight walking has been around for many years! One trip everybody bought booze and no food - sore heads in the morning and Yellow Pup and Narrow Neck in the heat were tough the next day. After that even the "hard men" came with a small bag of rice "just in case".

[ULWalkingPhil]

For me, I think I have a perfect weight to safety ratio. I agree, you can be Stupid Light. I've seen images of hikers cutting up there 15gram storage pouch to save a few grams, That's Stupid Light, and those that only use a tarp that don't give any protection from the wind and side driven rain such as the tarp setup shown in the earlier post is again in my opinion stupid light.

I've done stupid heavy, many times in the past. till my body and back said no more. So I've had no choose but to go lightweight. It's the best move I've ever taken, but there is some stupidity out there. Some of the weight's i've read online with less than 5 pounds for the big 4, just makes me shake my head.

This is a great topic.

[Mountain Rocket]

This is a great topic.

Agree. I will hopefully enter into the discussion when my head hurts less. Bleh!

[wayno]

This is a great topic.

Agree. I will hopefully enter into the discussion when my head hurts less. Bleh!

whats great about it? the confessional aspect of it??

[Mountain Rocket]

whats great about it? the confessional aspect of it??

Haha! No, in seriousness I think it is an important discussion to have. Even if it is merely internal
It can be so easy to loose sight of the bigger picture when buying gear. Perspective in that regard never goes astray.

[Franco]

Here some of my favourite non working solutions :
Balloon beds. Yes mats made by blowing up those long thin balloons that clown use (there is a clue in there...)
Paper pots. You can boil water inside a paper pot. The not so easy part is to do it more than once and to pick up said paper pot once it is boiling.

Bivvy for hikers. Yep, light (can be...) and very small.
Try getting inside one with wet gear on when it is raining and get changed .
(I would be very keen to see a video clip on this one...)

Safety blanket as a non emergency blanket... (try it)

One multi-use handle :push on fork/toothbrush attachments and to be used as a peg ...
(however it could boost your immunity system)
Franco

[Moondog55]

Try as I may I find it hard to get the big 4 below 8 kg, but that is because the pack I find the most comfortable to carry is itself heavy, and the mattress I need for a good nites sleep is as well; in this instance i will carry what is comfortable and not whinge too much. SOLO is always heavier on your back than sharing

[Mark F]

Moondog, If that is your "right weight" then there is no reason why anybody should criticise or you feel that it is a problem. You are lucky if the weight diminishes by sharing. For me, when I go walking with my partner I get to carry an extra 1/2 kg as I carry a 2 person shelter, different stove and bigger pot. I usually carry a bit more of the food as well. If I was able to share equally I would only cut my weight by about 250g over my solo setup.

[wayno]

Try as I may I find it hard to get the big 4 below 8 kg, but that is because the pack I find the most comfortable to carry is itself heavy, and the mattress I need for a good nites sleep is as well; in this instance i will carry what is comfortable and not whinge too much. SOLO is always heavier on your back than sharing

+1 amen to that brother.....
lucky in nz, often you can factor huts into a lot of trips and not have to include camping gear.... even better book a hut with gas cookers.....

[wayno]

Moondog, If that is your "right weight" then there is no reason why anybody should criticise or you feel that it is a problem. You are lucky if the weight diminishes by sharing. For me, when I go walking with my partner I get to carry an extra 1/2 kg as I carry a 2 person shelter, different stove and bigger pot. I usually carry a bit more of the food as well. If I was able to share equally I would only cut my weight by about 250g over my solo setup.

my weight goes up by 5kg when my girlfriend comes along

[Strider]

Moondog, If that is your "right weight" then there is no reason why anybody should criticise or you feel that it is a problem. You are lucky if the weight diminishes by sharing. For me, when I go walking with my partner I get to carry an extra 1/2 kg as I carry a 2 person shelter, different stove and bigger pot. I usually carry a bit more of the food as well. If I was able to share equally I would only cut my weight by about 250g over my solo setup.

my weight goes up by 5kg when my girlfriend comes along

Good preparation for the heavy burden of marriage

[Moondog55]

In a previous partnership my wife carried an equal share of the stove/pot /tent weight. My current does not bushwalk or camp but my stove pots and tent weight hasn't changed much over the last 2 decades.
Truth is fitness plays a much bigger role than the actual pack weight, although lighter is better on a long walk, fuel and food weighs so much that a kilo more of extra base weight really doesn't matter too much to me.

[wayno]

In a previous partnership my wife carried an equal share of the stove/pot /tent weight. My current does not bushwalk or camp but my stove pots and tent weight hasn't changed much over the last 2 decades.
Truth is fitness plays a much bigger role than the actual pack weight, although lighter is better on a long walk, fuel and food weighs so much that a kilo more of extra base weight really doesn't matter too much to me.

+1 dead right, on a long walk it becomes a smaller percentage of the load.... there was another comment or article referenced in the original article that talked about a couple buying a pack, they were looking to go ultra light and in the end realised buying a heavier pack was going to be more comfortable and easier to carry.

[nq111]

Stupid light is certainly a valid term! Interesting I was reading John Chapman's brief introduction to walking gear on his website a little while ago and he recommends a 4-season (he says most would call 'expedition-grade') tent for walking high country in Tasmania in any season. I would totally agree - one may travel faster and fresher with a superlight pack and tarp but when that southern ocean blizzard hits in february you can't run fast enough...

However I have a slightly different take on the light-weight direction. I think the super- ultra lightweight purists (whatever they call themselves) serve a great purpose. They are kinda like F1 racing is to general cars. As small, competitive, obsessed community constantly pursuing slightly lighter or slightly more efficient.

Whilst many of their ideas are certainly out there, innovations from this group are filtering through to mainstream walkers and we are all benefiting. For example the major manufacturers seem to be getting much more serious about weight of items in recent year. Another example is whilst i am no fan of shoes for walking, the constant bagging of heavy leather boots has helped see in some better hybrid / synthetic boots that are much lighter on the feet. Hopefully they will convince major boot manufacturers to produce more non-goretex lined models in the future too.

I have probably improved my gear set and walking more by studying the ultra-light walking crowd than any others, even though in no way could I describe myself as lightweight by their definitions and disagree with some of their major ideas. So thanks from me to this community of nutters!

[wayno]

you forgot about the ones with only an umbrella to keep the rain off.....

[nq111]

you forgot about the ones with only an umbrella to keep the rain off.....

Yeah - i do love that one. Obviously some of these guys walk where there is no wind, no scrub, and no scrambling. Sounds more like 'ultralight collecting the saturday paper' than 'ultralight bushwalking'

[wayno]

oh and the thin plastic poncho's a blowin in the wind that also cover the pack with half their gear strapped to the outside of their pack....

[Dale]

Skurka makes no secret of being a long distance hiker and in some pretty remote locals. That's not necessarily the best scenario to be trimming every gram. For me the longer the trip the more 'wiggle' room I want and the more creature comforts. For a weekend in familiar terrain, not too cold where I can exit easily than very light weight works nicely. With the gear that's around now you can get a light base weight without compromising comfort. My knees thank me for it on every trip.

However I have a slightly different take on the light-weight direction. I think the super- ultra lightweight purists (whatever they call themselves) serve a great purpose. They are kinda like F1 racing is to general cars. As small, competitive, obsessed community constantly pursuing slightly lighter or slightly more efficient.

Nice analogy.

[yogibarnes]

Hmmm... All good stuff but not much discussion yet on the trade off of weight vs risk. GPS, PLB, adequacy of first aid kit, extra warmth clothing etc are all risk aversion items which add up. The root rationale for most weight comes down to risk aversion? Think walking off naked into the wilderness and work up from there...

[Strider]

lucky in nz, often you can factor huts into a lot of trips and not have to include camping gear.... even better book a hut with gas cookers.....

What happens if things go pear shaped before you make it to a hut?

[Mark F]

yogibarnes - Risks are usually assessed on two axes, frequency and severity and you can't protect against all risks. You obviously try to minimise risks that are both high frequency and high severity but there has to be a cutoff. The real question is at what point do you stop trying to minimise risks. This is what experience is all about. People with greater experience can usually better assess risk (eg. reaching a flooded river) and in many cases take effective action to either nullify the risk (don't cross the flooded river) or lower the risk (find a more suitable crossing point). Experience is weight free but cannot be purchased. Getting to the right weight for a trip is very much about having sufficient gear to minimise risk while not carrying excessive or overly heavy gear for the expected conditions.

To me the main risk is becoming incapacitated and not being able to travel. Thus I always carry a Spot ( I don't want to get into that discussion. It does what I want of it and I have had no problems). My clothing system has been honed to cover a wide range of conditions at minimal weight. I can soon check the met stats for what is expected if going into a new area. My first aid kit is minimal but it reflects what I have used over the past 40 years and it only has to prolong life, not be capable of carrying out major surgery.

All this really boils down to experience and being risk adverse. Remember the accident rate in a party of 2 is twice the solo accident rate (on a party basis) - it is only the reponse to an accident that changes. Experience will also allow you to extract better performance from the same gear.

[walkinTas]

I agree the experience is an important factor in determining the correct equipment level. This highlights one of the major problems when one is asked to give advice - it can be difficult to assess the experience level of others. Then there is the fact that experience in one locality does not equal experience in all situation (deserts aren't the same as mountains). So you can add into the mix stupid advice, where the adviser believes that what is right the one is right for the many.

[Orion]

Timely article and thread. I'm poring over spreadsheets for my gear and food trying to evaluate the plusses and minuses of including or excluding items for a trip that will be difficult for me. It's impossible to know for sure what the conditions will be (will the gear be adequate?) or what my metabolism will demand (enough or too much food?). It's a series of educated guesses, but I hope to make them without falling into the traps that Skurka writes about. I have no stove and no tent, I sewed a quilt to save a few hundred grams -- yet I'm taking an inflatible pad instead of foam. Have I made the best choices? We'll see...

[wayno]

lucky in nz, often you can factor huts into a lot of trips and not have to include camping gear.... even better book a hut with gas cookers.....

What happens if things go pear shaped before you make it to a hut?

depends on the track, on a good track with major water courses bridged, I dont take anything extra, on rougher tracks, bivy bag, tarp.