[pct-l] Is Faster & Farther for you?

Tue Jan 19 13:33:58 CST 2010

Hi, Steel-Eye,

Good points, to be sure.

However, why would I want to go faster and farther if I don't have to?

When I plan on hiking for as many days as my season and abilities will 
allow, my daily mileage requirement falls to the 17mpd average (with a day 
off every five for laundry, pleasure, weather, etc.) I enjoyed on both the 
PCT and CDT. My desire was to relax (in and around camp and rest stops along 
the way) and hike (to see more of the mountains and wilderness that I might 
not be able to return to enjoy again), not the hike-and-crash that I see so 
much of these days.

Granted, many a thru hiker gets used to 30 to 40 mile days, starting before 
sun-up, striding all day, and crashing often after dark to a quick, cold 
meal, maybe only a hastily eaten bar before sleep, but that was not part of 
why I have ever been out there. To Each His Own. If hiking faster and 
farther is part of who you are and what you want to accomplish on your 
Wilderness Hike-of-a Lifetime, then do it; you won't be happy otherwise (and 
it won't bother anyone else nor cause anyone else to do the same unless they 
want to).

Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if all the trips off trail for 
resupplies, hitching back and forth, and even the strategy of 
"flip-flopping" consume so much time that hikers have to hike faster and 
farther to make up for it in order to get through to the end before the snow 
flies and they are forced to quit?

Obviously, not everyone can carve out a hiking schedule that lasts for five 
and a half months to keep their daily mileage down, but can't more start 
earlier, say in March or the first of April, as long as they are experienced 
in rain and snow hiking? Just because the current philosophy is 
start-late-so-you-have-dry-trail and "run" all the way to the other end 
doesn't mean it is the only way to do it or that you have to hike like the 
rest.

Thankfully, I am still strong and able-bodied to carry a "heavy" pack full 
of the luxuries I like to have with me while out on the trail, come snow or 
nasty weather. I try not to start out with the weight I end up with, that 
would invite pain or injury just getting used to it. Sure, start as light as 
you can and once you're strong, say two or three weeks into your journey, 
start carrying anything you'd like, fishing gear, nicer camera, satellite 
phone, warmer clothes, thicker pad, roomier tent that can take the gale or 
foot of snow, books, bigger maps, safer stove, bigger pot so you can eat 
more food, and, of course More Food.

"Food for Thought"

Mtnned

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CHUCK CHELIN" <steeleye at wildblue.net>
To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:43 AM
Subject: [pct-l] Gear Weight Whac-A-Mole

Good morning, all,

Whenever I read arguments in favor of old-time, heavy weight hiking gear I
feel moved to offer an alternative, ultralite opinion.  Sometimes the
freighters argue for tall, five-pound boots; sometimes it’s brass-and-steel
gas stoves; and sometimes it’s large, full-featured double wall tents.
  Fortunately,
I haven’t yet seen anyone argue in favor of carrying a cast iron skillet to
fry a couple of eight-inch trout they intend to catch.  Currently, the
discussion is about large external-frame packs, and I’m beginning to think
I’m in an endless game of gear weight Whac-A-Mole.

I’ve used most of the older pack rigs but, based upon experience, I’ve
gotten past them.  I recently sent the oldest remaining relic – a wood and
canvas model -- to PCT Mom to display for the amusement of her hiker guests.
The next-to-oldest model, a welded aluminum pack frame, is still
occasionally employed for packing trail maintenance gear such as chain saws,
Grip-Hoists, wire rope, snatch blocks, transport chain, and other such heavy
rigging jewelry.  Even then I’ll admit to lashing the gear onto the frame,
then trying to con some stout youngster into hauling it up the trail.

The argument for a big, sturdy pack is that it will comfortably carry
tremendous loads, but I can’t imagine using the terms “comfortable” and
“tremendous load” in the same sentence relative to a hiker.

One problem with a large pack is, if the volume is there people tend to fill
it with something – anything – usually stuff that is unnecessary.  One of
the worst reasons to do something is just because you can.

Another problem is, a couple of extra or heavy pieces of gear means the pack
must be stronger which in itself adds more weight.  If you add two pounds of
tent, etc, the resulting total additional load weight could be three, or
more, pounds.  Additionally, your hiking speed will be reduced so more food
and water must be carried between resupply stops making the pack heavier
yet.  That’s called an exponential progression of weight.  An exponential
regression of weight works just the opposite.  When you eliminate or reduce
the weight of an item you also reduce the weight of the means to carry it,
and you can then carry it faster and further.

Steel-Eye

Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT – 1965

http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye

http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09
_______________________________________________
Pct-l mailing list
Pct-l at backcountry.net
To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

List Archives:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 4786 (20100119) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com