[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] reliance on gear



--
I agree:  fun question.

Hiking: I have much less gear than I did when I first started
hiking.  My base pack weight is about 10lbs, BUT the gear in that
pack could never have weighed 10lbs 10 years ago.  For example, I
have a Patagonia jacket that keep me warm in temps down to the 30's
and is waterproof and only weighs something like 19oz.  Ten years
ago, the same jacked would have weighed twice that, or I would have
had two jackets - one for warmth and one for rain.  So even the fact
that my pack weight is less and my gear list is shorter is due to the
fact that technology allows it.   ...and that allows me to hike
farther, faster, and longer.

Climbing: I love the analysis about gear and ability.  I grew up
climbing around on this short 20ft cliff in the park near my house.
My friends and I would climb up and down this limestone crag many
times per day all day long.  We would race up it, hang out on it,
climb down it, traverse it, all in tennis shoes with no gear.  The
city I grew up in had explosive growth during the 80's and one day
when we were romping around on the cliff, so californian transplants
showed up with ropes, and gear, and harnesses, chocks, helmets, etc.
We were climbing around on the same damn rock that we had always
climbed on and these "serious climbers" told us that we should go
home and that we were too risky and that we needed protection, etc.
We were like "whatever? we have been climbing these routes for years
without gear and we know every inch of them and we know our limits.
just cuz you need all this gear doesn't mean that you are better
climbers, or that we are not safe."

I think that I am a better climber because I learned without gear,
and Dave is right: when the consequences are so serious, then it
makes you be SURE about a move before you attempt it.   I also think
that because of this, on routes that are considered "easy" (maybe <
5.3), I tend to climbs faster because I rely on less gear, which is
opposite of how gear affects hiking or harder climbs.

fun stuff.  thanks for the topic.

peace,
dude






> GREAT QUESTION!
>
> I can't speak to rock climbing, but I know that in hiking, gear
> can overwhelm other aspects of the hike.  As my skill has grown,
> my toy collection has shrunk.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <CMountainDave@aol.com>
> To: <pct-l@backcountry.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:24 PM
> Subject: [pct-l] reliance on gear
>
>
>> Who is the better climber? One who can climb a 5-10, but is so
>> tied to his safety gear that he is unable to climb a simple class
>> 4 without it. Or the old time climbers who never climbed above a
>> 5.4 (the limit that evolved
> over
>> decades of climbing experience) but never used protection at all.
>> I read a book (Where Clouds Can Go - an autobiography of the
>> famous
> Canadian
>> guide Conrad Kain of the early 1900s who had over 300 first
>> ascents in the Canadian Rockies.) and was amazed at the furor
>> that protection (first
> pitons
>> and then chocks) caused in the climbing world in the 1930s.
>> Protection was considered cheating by some, because it enabled
>> climbers to go beyond
> their
>> abilities and not pay the ultimate price if they guessed wrong.
>> In other words, one no longer had to be absolutely sure of their
>> limitations
> because
>> safety gear would come to the rescue when friction turned out to
>> be a variable instead of an absolute.
>> The old rule was the leader never falls -- he knows his
>> limitations and accepts them. This attitude is what makes him
>> safe. The new rule was that it is okay for the leader to fall
>> sometimes because
> of
>> the safety system set in place, and therefore there are no
>> limits. The
> safety
>> system makes it safe.
>> But the gear does fail from time to time when the leader falls.
>> So in a sense, gear gives false confidence to extend ones
>> limitations based on
> gear
>> expectations as much as personal skill -- after all friction is
>> indeed a variable. But the margin for error is reduced to zero.
>> And a 5-10 could
> not
>> be done without specialized gear -- such as rock climbing shoes.
>> So the rating is a function of gear, made possible by gear.
>> The gear head becomes so tied to his technology that his
>> performance
> would
>> falter without it. One a climb of, say 5.2, he would still need
>> to use protection where a climber of the old school would know
>> the climb is well within his experienced abilities without it.
>> The new age climber would
> insist
>> that because he has and uses protection on that 5.2, he is safer
>> than the
> old
>> school climber, even though he ventures into territory that any
>> old
> schooler
>> would say is obviously not safe. A conundrum, eh?
>> So which is it. Does, as Clint Eastwood says, a man need to know
>> his limitations, or is it okay for the leader to rely on gear and
>> boldly fall without expecting consequences
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PCT-L mailing list
>> PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
>> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCT-L mailing list
> PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

_________________________________________________________________
    http://fastmail.ca/ - Fast Secure Web Email for Canadians