[pct-l] A Question UL Credibility

[ned at mountaineducation.org]

Hi, Ron!

All we're primarily concerned about is the health and safety of backcountry 
and thru hikers so that they're hikes are happy and successful. In order to 
do this, we offer free backcountry training courses for anyone interested in 
either testing their chosen gear in the snow or learning what it takes to 
live in it. We specialize in snow skills because it is the one area where 
most thru hikers are not very experienced and their inexperience can lead to 
health and safety issues in the backcountry. Sure, you can wait for the 
"optimal entry date to enter the Sierra without any snow,'' then have to do 
big miles to get to Canada before the snow starts flying again, or just 
learn how to deal with it and travel over it safely.

We like our gear to be predictable and applicable to the situations we 
expect to encounter. We have personally witnessed too many of our first-time 
students, those who came with their lightest stuff to test it out, have to 
deal with torn clothing (and got wet and cold), none or little sleep 
(because their pads did not provide enough insulating value or their bags 
were too warmly rated and they had no prior experience to know whether they 
were cold sleepers or not), tents not appropriate for snow-storm life 
(collapsed, compressed from wind and snow from the sides, or too small to 
hunker down for at least a day), or footwear that kept their feet wet and 
cold all the time (remember, we are on snow all the time).

If your UL gear does what it is intended to do under the conditions you 
expect to encounter, then it is great. But know what it can do and whether 
there are any conditions where to rely upon it would be regrettable. If you 
can live with those regrettable situations, maybe you're banking on them not 
occurring on your hike because they statistically don't, then enjoy your 
hike for what it brings you.

I know that people are getting annoyed at our comments about UL and safety, 
but I have to speak out for the other side. If it works for you because you 
have been out there and tested it for yourself, then it is the way to go.

Hiking as lightly as possible is always good advice. Just test what you 
choose in the conditions expected before you have to rely on it for all 
conditions far from civilization.

Some of what divides us, here, is our disinterest in hiking big miles, like 
the 30mpd you mention. If that is what most thru hikers want to do, then so 
be it. We met along the trail this thru hiking season too many thrus who 
complained of hiking too fast or too long right off the border and they went 
through a lot of pain for it. The shorter your hiking season, the faster you 
will have to hike to get to Canada before snows stop you wherever you are in 
the quest. Obviously, those we filmed overcame the problems and continued on 
while others were leaving the trail where we met them. On my PCT and CDT 
thrus, I choose to leave "early," in March, lengthening my thru hiking 
season, so that I could hike slower. I prepared to deal with the snow I knew 
to expect.




Ned Tibbits, Director
Mountain Education
1106A Ski Run Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, Ca. 96150
    P: 888-996-8333
    F: 530-541-1456
    C: 530-721-1551
    http://www.mountaineducation.org
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Moak" <ronmoak at sixmoondesigns.com>
To: <ned at mountaineducation.org>; "'PCT MailingList'" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 2:18 PM
Subject: A Question UL Credibility


> Personally I respect all of the efforts Ned puts in toward educating 
> people
> for backcountry exploration.
>
> Ned's posts about gear and dangers of backcountry travel seem to appear 
> here
> on a weekly basis. His distaste for ultralight gear is readily apparent. 
> As
> is his general ignorance of ultralight gear or its proper usage. In order 
> to
> properly evaluate something, you really need to use it over a wide variety
> of conditions and preferably spanning multiple years.
>
> While Ned may have used the gear occasionally from time to time, he has 
> not
> used it enough to form what I'd consider to be a educated opinion. Let's
> take a look at one of his recent rants.
>
>>>
> I wouldn't want something statistically lighter than anything comparable 
> if
> it,
>
> --was uncomfortable (thinking packs, pads)
>
> It's not quite clear what Ned's referring to here, UL Packs, light weight
> packs or some combination thereof. Personal Experience; Standard Framed
> Pack: 3000 miles, Lightweight Internal Frame Pack: 1000 miles; UL 
> Frameless
> Pack: 2000+ miles.
>
> I've been carrying a UL frameless pack for the last decade and wouldn't go
> back to a framed pack unless carrying heavy loads, which fortunately I'm 
> too
> old to do anymore.
>
> As to pads, I don't need much anymore. I used to use a closed cell foam 
> pad,
> the switched to a thermarest when I got older. Then I discovered that if I
> slept on a harder mattress during most of the year, I wouldn't need much
> when backpacking. Now I'm comfortable on a 1/4" Reflix bubble pad. Not 
> that
> I'd recommend it to most people.
>
> --fell apart too soon requiring frequent replacement (thinking clothing or
> shoes)
>
> Personal Experience: Standard Heavy hiking boots: 2000 miles; High Top
> Lightweight boots: 800 miles; Trail runners 3000+; In the ten years since
> switching to trail runners, I've crossed every trail condition one's 
> likely
> to find and have never felt the need for a heavier boot. If I was to ever 
> do
> technical mountain climbing again, I might pick up a heavier pair of boots
> for use with crampons. However there are some crampons that work well with
> trail runners now days.
>
> When I wore the Heavy hiking boots, I wore out one set of soles in 800 
> miles
> and had to get the whole bottoms re-stitched in another 600 miles.
> Fortunately in those days you could find a good cobbler in most small 
> towns.
> Then Damascus, VA had a cobbler and no pack shops. Today they have three
> pack shops where you can buy shoes and no cobbler. I'm not sure you could
> hike an entire thru-hike on a standard pair of heavy boots without some 
> sort
> of resole or repair. Plus heavy boots take days to dry out. Trail runners
> can go from soaking wet to dry in a few hours.
>
> --historically caught tables and forests on fire (thinking alcohol stoves)
>
> Personal Experience: Seva Stove: 2000 miles; Whisperlite: 800 miles;
> Canister Stove: 600 miles; Alcohol Stove: 3000 miles; I've unfortunately
> burned several tables and almost started a forest fire with a 
> malfunctioning
> white gas stoves. They are complex, difficult to maintain, noisy, heavy, 
> and
> expensive. They do heat up water fast, work great for larger groups and 
> are
> relatively easy to get fuel. Canister stoves are more difficult to ship 
> the
> canister and harder to determine how much fuel is left. They are a bit
> quieter than white gas stove and will heat lots of water.
>
> I've used alcohol for most of the last 10 years except during winter. It's
> silent, doesn't breakdown, cheap and light.
>
> --didn't keep me warm enough on enough nights (sleeping bags)
>
> Not sure what's the problem here. A few years ago there was the whole
> Jardine polyester quilt thing. But like most fads that's run its course.
> Virtually every ultralight hiker I know carries either a down sleeping bag
> or quilt. For the most part I use a down quilt however, for an upcoming
> Sierra hike ,in a couple of weeks, I'll be switching to a down sleeping 
> bag.
> However, I'll be using the sleeping bag like a quilt.
>
> --was difficult to use, comparatively (small-mouthed plastic soda bottles 
> as
> canteens)
>
> Believe it or not. I'm one of the first people to actually carry a Nalgene
> bottle on a thru hike. In '77 they were only available in chemistry labs 
> and
> weren't found in any outdoor store. I was luck to get some carried them 
> for
> the entire thru-hike. It wasn't until several years later that they 
> started
> showing up in outdoor store.
>
> As someone already mentioned, the wider mouth Gatorade bottles make great
> water bottles and I've carried one for at least a thousand miles before
> replacing it. They are certainly lighter and cheaper than Nalgene bottles.
>
> --or was unsafe (twist-locked hiking poles)
>
> This one is downright weird. Each year literally thousands of hikers take 
> to
> the hills carrying hiking poles, racking up millions of miles in the
> process. While poles can be temperamental at times, so can stoves as I've
> discussed before. If I had to list which one was more unsafe, hiking poles
> or gas stoves, the stoves would win by a far margin.
>
> Personally I don't use hiking poles. Nor do many ultralight hikers. 
> Reducing
> your pack weight allows you to travel easier without the need for poles.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> I'm not saying that you shouldn't listen to Ned when making gear choices.
> Nor should you take my words as gospel. In fact your best served listing 
> to
> a wide range of people who've successfully completed a thru hike. If 
> someone
> trash talks some piece of gear or hiking style, hold off on any judgment
> until it's confirmed by multiple sources.
>
> Most importantly, understand what works for someone else may not work for
> you. It's ok to be cautious just don't be afraid to adapt and change when
> the need arises.
>
> -----------------------------
> Fallingwater
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature database 5432 (20100907) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>