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

Tue Jan 19 14:33:56 CST 2010

Most of the NOBO hikers get here to Steven's Pass in late August thru early
September. They all finish the hike with no weather problems.

One of the main excuses for arriving late in September and into the ugly
weather up here in the North Cascades is too much partying  and hanging out
in California. Instead of playing 2-3 days (over and over again) down south
try just 1-2 days each time.  Travelling with a "group" seems to be a
downfall for some hikers. It is only going to be a problem when you all get
up north. Fun and games until you get up here and then it's into the
cold, daily rain (or snow) and the realization you can't wait out the
weather. Many have arrived here at the Dinsmore's and planned on one or 2
nights and end up staying 4-5 trying to wait out the rain and snow. Too
late. Starting mid September the weather every year turns crummy. Don't let
the party nights down south cause you to not be able to finish your hike. A
couple of recent years the hikers were stopped by mid to late September.
That's cut off at Snoqualmie and Steven's. That's hiking 2400 miles only to
not be able to finish their hike.

Check out the journamls from '07 and '08. Probably about 30 hikers for those
two years didn't make it. HYOH !!!

PCT MOM

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM, <ned at pacificcrestcustombuilders.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>