under10kg wrote:I would be interested to see a discussion on my conclusion that with care, my gear in October in Nepal was much safer in many ways than the traditional gear at 15kg plus. I did put a lot of thought and observation of gear on this trip for this conclusion.
No thinking person would disagree with the proposition that (all things being equal) lighter is safer. Less strain on joints, less chance of a slip, gentler landing if things go wrong, better hill climbing, less fatigue, etc. etc. Advances in technology and lightweight gear, and walking poles, are the things that have made much walking still a possibility for many of us.
The trade off point between lightness and safety and/or comfort is where the argy bargy begins.
U/L is another example of the 80/20 rule. IE: One can obtain 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost (NOT $ cost
) If one unthinkingly pursues that last 20% of benefit, the chances of paying 100% of the cost increase disproportionately.
I nearly always like to have a "hunker down" option. Of the two items in your list that caught my eye, you have attended to one - socks that weigh 40gms a pair and runners, in snow, would simply not cut it for me. Frostbite would be a very real possibility. I have dodgy ankles, and the footbed of any runner that I have tried, simply does not give my foot the support that it needs. Flat footbeds lead to pain for me very quickly. Loose snow falling in the top is another issue, but as I have been only a tourist in Nepal, I don't know if this is relevant.
The 89g bivvy bag is another. My lightest sleeping bag cover is approx 100/150. For me the hunker down option would require a bivvy bag in the true sense of the word, and this would be difficult to achieve at much under 500gms.
All the clothing would work for me, but could be marginal for me, as there does not appear to be a reserve, and I get cold when I stop at the end of the day. The weight of the shell does not suggest robustness, but that doesn't mean that it is not sufficiently robust for the use to which you put it. My 880gm bag would work for me in the conditions you describe.
Weight of the first aid stuff seems pretty low, particularly considering that that you were in a third world country.
Without getting super detailed, I think there is a good chance that without applying U/L for the sake of it, with what I have (dont have a b/bag) and use already,
I could probably be around 10kg for the trip as you describned it. IE: I would be aiming for the 80% of the available benefit from weight saving.
U/L, like hammocks and quilts, is a development that has very real applications and can extend our horizons.
All three can be seen in a bad light, perhaps at least partly as a result of the evangelistic fervour of a few proponents who seem insistent on promoting their use in any and all circumstances.