Posts
Backpacking, it's called. Nothing more. Somehow, there is the notion that others take a shelter like us, food and the like and achieve more. Yet they see no better views, find no more of the joy that is to be had from the outdoors. The weight of your kit doesn't change the landscape. I am of course referring to those who profess to go Ultra Light. The pursuit of an identity in backpacking for the sake of claiming some stupid pre-defined base weight as the goal rather than seeking the real aim - to go outdoors.
I am so sick of the stupid label, tag, and to be honest arrogant bollocks that comes from the Ultra Light community. There is an old saying that the emptiest vessels make the most noise.
It is noticeable that the ones banging on about how Ultra Light backpacking is superior to all others seem to do very little in terms of actual backpacking and are the ones who do an overnight in the woods and odd three day trip at best. Less talk and more walk, comes to mind.
So when I read (and yes I am about to say excellent post by Dave C on his BLOG ) this: "Increasingly I agree with Martin Rye: it is time for ultralight as identity politics to die"
So I decided to say a bit on this matter and lay out my position.
It's backpacking and nothing more! You decide the kit you need and attempt to undertake your journey. The starting point for your kit aims is the geographical and meteorological need, and not a defined base weight to stroke an ego and say look at me. Just go backpacking.
Dave also bothered to read my comments on my Bye Bye Backpacking Light POST. I didn't have a go at light kit. Yet some got upset about it and assumed that I was knocking light kit. - the identity blanket that they cling to. Let's recap some comments I made:
"Light kit is here to stay as people (me included) will buy it. But sense needs to be the message and skills for the hills. Light kit is great. But kit that meets the trip aims and delivers for that is the key."
"Why we take kit is more than weight. Yes, light kit helps. But a shelter that won't blow away in a gale is essential. Somehow those who evangelise UL at all costs miss."
I did not slate light kit. I use light kit. But the truth is that kit is a means to an end. The end is to go outdoors and enjoy it (well for me it is). Not to identify as some UL elitist who somehow does more than others. When in fact they seem to do less, more times than not, after reading some trip reports.
Andrew Skurka has, for me, helped to kill the UL identity, by drawing attention to the simple truth:
I went “stupid light” by:
- Not taking gear and supplies that were necessary given the conditions, and
- Taking gear and supplies that were too light.
Andrew Skurka July 2012
Some have that said this post by Skurka was not about Ul as a movement. Maybe it wasn't. Only he ultimately knows. But the truth is that not taking the gear and supplies that was necessary given the conditions was 'stupid'. The notion of baseweight as classified by the definition of UL is the wrong starting point - it is self-defeating and complete nonsense - take the kit you need, focus on that, and not some artificial baseweight limit.
The UL identity of obsessing over a baseweight limit as an aim and assuming that some light bit of kit will meet all outdoor conditions, needs and wants is wrong. The point Skurka made is take the gear needed. I'd say don't just take whatever meets some pre-defined weight limit so that you can give yourself an UL badge, and hang on to some elitist identity of UL as somehow superior.
Of course we need to understand how good a bit of kit is before we decide to use it, let alone have the skills to use it. Talking kit is a normal backpacking community pass time.
Engaging with people is part of joining in the backpacking community, with sharing views, analysing of and discussing the merits of kit. UL simply has divided that by its elitist approach and for me prevented others from looking at how they could lighten the pack weight they have and still be able to meet the real priority of taking the kit they need for the conditions - functional, durable and as light as possible - but not just the lightest alone in order to tick some box.
Kit choice is also subject to the conditions. Norway, Scotland, east coast of the USA all differ. The starting point is not the same. So having an aim of some set baseweight for those places and assuming that your cuben kit and superlight rucksack is ideal anyplace is self defeating, as the conditions could soon defeat you.
Then there are the skills that the UL community make a lot of. Does the person who is carrying the big pack and wearing boots lack skills? Get over yourself please. Share skills and tips, but don't assume you're somehow better than others. I have met too many old boys with years of amazing wilderness travel who have skills in abundance, and have been there and done it. Yet they still have a big rucksack and wear boots. Again the problem with the UL identity thing is the assumption that they have skills others don't. Has the thought crossed their minds that the old boys in boots could teach them a thing or two?
Skills shared, knowledge shared; lead by example, show others how you did it and many will be saying, I can do that. In the end we are all backpackers. Nothing complicated, not some deeper form of wilderness travel.
Let's get more excited about a trip report than a kit list. Let's be focused on getting fitter, more skilled and planning for those trips to come, rather than on some UL evangelist message.
UL as an identity, as an aim, rather than to be able to enjoy the outdoors, and as a concept needs to die.
60 comments:
"Yet they see no better views, find no more of the joy that is to be had from the outdoors. The weight of your kit doesn't change the landscape."
Couldn't agree more Martin. I enjoyed your points with reference to those who nip out for a one nighter in the local woods. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But to think that such a trip means so much more by preaching is a joke.
With what I do I often have to lug about 20kg min. Aye, I'm out for a few nights and choose to take wet meals (after long periods of freeze dried, I just don't like them anymore. My choice) and of course all my camera gear - but I still head out and enjoy the great outdoors. That's my focus. That's what I take joy from when pissed off lugging crap about.
All said and done, what's the point in being anal about a few grammes? Are some folk so weak they can't manage the weight? C'mon. It's not done me any harm and thousands of others too. Made me fitter and stronger too. Ha!
Hike your own hike. By any means. But for some to be all 'preachy' about it, is really quite condescending and in some cases prejudicial to others.
Like you said, the empty vessels that make the most noise etc. Nice quote and really rather apt I think.
Well said Terry. It all in the end comes down to the need to go out there. Be in the hills, mountains and forests. Backpacking is all it is - nothing more. I had some of the best trips ever with boots on my feet, a LoweAlpine 70L rucksack and a 2kg tent. The joy is the landscape and not the kit. The aims we all have out in the landscape differ but it is unchanging, unyielding and at times unforgiving. I love it.
Nicely put Martin.
I have to say that over the past two or three years I have been a little bemused by all the UL / Light / rather light / fantastically light talk. I have been told I have a 'traditional' backpacker mindset on one blog because I suggested that it was worth the extra 200 grammes taking waterproof trousers with me.
At the end of the day Backpacking is a deeply uncool activity undertaken by a small proportion of the population. Nowt wrong with that but people just need to see it for what it is, walking and then sleeping outside. No need to make it sound sexier / more heroic than it is.
It's always made me chuckle when folks manage to equate going lighter with experience, its almost as if the lighter a pack the more experiences they believe themselves to have. I spent last weekend backpacking with a friend who had a rather heavy pack. However as ex-mountain rescue she probably has more hill experience than most bloggers put together.
Anyway I'm off to wax my leather boots for a trip to a remote Scottish Island later this week. It's cos I'm just a traditional backpacker see..........
Again, couldn't agree more!
I'm not a really a backpacker, and certainly no UL advocate.
For me, "lightweight" is everything I need and then everything I want with me, and I'll get it lighter if I can - which usually means packing a thinner book!
I'm not going to compromise my enjoyment to fulfill someone elses idea of what is "right". That's just plain daft!
In fact, going further, I think the whole lighweight and UL movement has had a sizeable negative impact on gear: that of driving perfectly good products of old to some unusable, poor-quality version that may be 20% lighter but is 20% less robust or suitable as well.
James those waterproofs fail at times but sure do help most of the time.
Backpacking is a cold and harsh thing at times. Its about hard work, and challenging too. The reward is so worth it. Your friend has been there and done it. Many UL experts have done little, and talk much. Well said.
Jules there is some good kit that is light and some crap. You make a good point. Thanks.
Hi Martin,
Very interesting post as it points out some very important (and mostly misunderstood) facts.
When arguing over 'going ultralight or no't or about ultralight as a label one should look at the roots of this movement. Well, there were always people having an eye on taking only the essentials and not overloading (think mountaineers, ancient hunter seekers, etc.), but we all concure that the popularity of modern 'ultralight' started with Ray Jardine. Well, amusingly he never talked about 'ultralight' nor did he set a maximum weight what should be packed.
When he prepared for the PCT he reflected his gear and decided to start a new approach. Just to take what's really WORKING, EASY TO MAINTAIN, NOT OVERLY BUILD. Surprisingly this weighted exactly as much as modern ultraligters claim as their maximum baseweight. I guess that's when something went wrong. Ray Jardine was looking for equipment that would work the best for him ON A SPECIFIC TRIP. Other people just saw that he was hiking with less than 10 pounds.
Someone (I blame BPL.com for this) made this popular in inventing labels as L, UL, SUL, XUL and such. Why? I guess it's easier to explain to outsiders the meaning of 'ultralight' not with teaching them the fine aspects of deciding what gear works and what not (as this always depends on the kind of trip, environment and the person), but with simply saying hiking with less than 10 pounds.
But this focus is completely wrong! It's not about a specific weight! It's about reflecting ones choices of gear! With saying 'ultralight is about hiking with less than 10 pounds' is just stupid. The original 10 pounds where just a random result of choosing gear that would work on the PCT. No one claimed that it would work in Scotland, Iceland, or even Antartica (well, at least Ray Jardine didn't).
That said it's of course possible to do trips with less than 10 pound of gear in other regions of this beautiful world. But it's not always the wisest decision. Sometimes it's better to take more. ANd sometimes it's maybe even better to bring less!
As Skurka says with "stupid light" AND "stupid heavy" (it's not only about 'stupid light'):
It's wrong to
-not carrying what I needed
-taking items that are too light (not up to the task)
-taking something you don't need given the conditions, or taking an item that does the job it needs to do but at a much greater weight than other options
The right gear sits in the small line in between. Some may call it 'ultralight'. Some may call it 'the RayWay'. Other's just call it common sense.
The point is: It's not about a few grams. (I've never been a gram weenie myself)
But there are people out there (especially ones that are quite new to this ultralight thing and can't see further than this 10 pound thing) that try to give it a definition. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFINITION OF 'ULTRALIGHT'! It always depends on too many factors. As I once said:
"Ultralight is not about a single products weight! It's about the interaction of all parts: The gear, the trail conditions and the person!"
Just focusing on the gear part excludes a lot.
For me going ultralight means considering all aspects of an upcoming trip and making the choices that would leed to the 'best' result. (Well, 'best' is possibly not the best word for this, but mind my english as I'm not a native speaker)
That's where I concure with you. In the end we are all backpackers and outdoorsmen. Some may call themself mountaineers (I never did although I climbed a few tops), others call themself pilgrims (does it make a pilgrim just by walking a pilgrims path?), others name themself a long distance hiker or thruhiker (where does a long distance start?). Well, and others call themself 'ultralighters'.
(Sorry, that this is getting a little long) ;-)
...Do I call myself a 'ultralighter'? Yes I do! Why? Simple put I call myself a ultralighter because before and after most of my trips (not for every weekender) I reflect strongly on the trail conditions I will expect and try to choose the gear that will work the best for me under given conditions. Most backpackers do the same. But I guess I look into more detail than the mass of the backpackers out there. (Thinking of typical hikers along the WHW or the GR20)
Of course I could just take my trusty old Hilleberg Staika, my old army 100L framed backpack and my complete Trangia set. But due to a severe back injury I'm forced to consider a low weight. In my case more weight results in less fun (sometimes it's even painfull!). As a conclusion less weight results in more fun as it enables me to do the hikes and trips I wouldn't be able to do with other gear.
Basti Grandma Gatewood in 1955 walked the AT with what many call a UL kit list. Way before Ray and his Way.
BPL is a key player in the elitist, rude and whole system that has become the UL movement. I go light and very light at times. I can, and have done 70 miles in 2.5 days with little effort. Yet I did not call myself a UL, SUl, fast packer and still, will and am going to say it. "I am a backpacker". Sharing skill, insight and kit ideas is, and will be found on this blog. Its always is and will always be welcome. Its helpful to me and others for backpacking.
Kit that is needed can be light, and I have a lot of it. But the baseline for me, the UL pursuit for a UL sake in terms of the outdoors is something I fail to see or need. Yet many times I would be taking kit that some would say is a UL kit list. But I don't identify, nor see a reason to seek to be UL for its own sake. It's backpacking. Enjoy the trails and thanks for the input on this. I appreciate it.
UL and SUL and all the attendant crap that went with it became a fad with bandwagon junkies dominating the conversation. BPL had a year's worth of money out of me and then I ditched because I couldn't take the sanctimonious preaching and condescension. The sad thing is that UL as a way of selecting kit is something that I still identify with and will continue to do and write about. Like so many theories in the past, in relation to a great many areas, not just outdoor pursuits, the people jumping on the bandwagon and making more out of it than there is to make turned it into something it is not.
I don't think that Skurka said anything new - certainly not anything we had not all been saying for a very long time but because he's Andrew Skurka we all suddenly bow down and take note. We've been saying for a long time that you take whatever kit allows you to enjoy yourself and be safe. Taking less, adopting a dual-use policy and finding the lightest examples of kit you can (and which stil do the job) are all sensible courses if you want to have a lighter backpack on your back. Terry says "what's the point in being anal about a few grammes? Are some folk so weak they can't manage the weight? C'mon. It's not done me any harm and thousands of others too. Made me fitter and stronger too." Sorry mate - not with you there. Be anal about your grams and suddenly you've lightened your pack by 1kg. Am I so weak I cannot manage it? No, I'm not but if I can get outdoors and climb big ol' hills with a 5kg pack instead of a 7kg pack and get the same out of it, I'll take the former. Sorry if that makes me a wimp but I think it makes good sense. Ho hum. It is also the basis of alpinism and those lads I don't mark out as stupid or weak.
I want to take a DSLR into the hills and that is not considered by some to be a sensible choice - I should be taking the NEX-7 instead solely because it is lighter but the same quality. I disagree and this is the point that Terry is making (and here we agree) - you take what you want and need to make your time enjoyable/profitable. Terry and I both have (albeit Terry more than me) other considerations where we're outdoors.
I am glad the empty vessels have dumped UL because I will continue and now I don't have to listen to them bleating about it as they move onto the next fad. It's not dead, because it was never "alive" - it was a way of thinking and they never die.
Andrew UL has its evangelist and many disciples. They will cling to an identity of going UL for UL sake. Cling to this and that new lighter bit of kit for its own sake.
Never will they say that new down jacket is a bit more in weight, more durable and better. They cant see, nor will see we don't care about UL and its label.
Carrying kit is down to each and their own aims. It does not harm us many times, but there will be times going as light as possible matters. But that is the point. Kit selection for the need of the trip and not for the sake of it to be UL for Ul sake. It's backpacking you know.
Thanks for your quick replay, Martin.
Of course Emma hiked with lightweight equipment way before Ray did. But I guess R.J. made it more popular.
Going ultralight for the ultralights sake is not my thing. (But for some it's a kind of sport or a hobby. E.g. building a pepsican stove that weights even less even if it won't work undertrip conditions. But these people should accept that it's something completely different)
Non the less sometimes ideas resulting from it may be interesting to consider.
That's why I call myself ultralight. 'Cause I use techniques (not gear!) that where invented or optimized in the ul-community.
But I call myself a backpacker as well. That's something that should go parallel and not against each other!
I don't like the BPL approach of trying to label everything (and dictating a maximum weight for specific types of backpackers). I guess this is 'cause it's a commercial website. Without giving their members/ customers an aim to achieve (sub 10 pounds) they wouldn't be able to sell so many memberships! (Think of weightwatchers!) ;-)
Other international and uncommercial websites are more open minded.
Basti, much to my shame I comment little on your excellent blog. I appreciate the input here.
Techniques (skills) are applicable to all backpackers. UL does not I suggest have a monopoly on them. Yes there is skills needed to use some lighter kit. Smart thinking on the trail is good thinking. But again I see it as backpacking. But as I wrote can the man with the boots and big pack teach us? There is a lot to learn and from those who maybe don't see it as others do.
Totally agree Martin. The only reason to bring up lightweight gear is to help people enjoy themselves on hiking or backpacking trips and not to loath carrying a heavy pack.
After that we should focus on trips and even day hikes, which are easier to pull off than overnights and can be just as satisfying, though in a different way.
Perhaps you meant to say "we're all Section Hikers in the end" (either by backpacking or day hiking.)
Philip,
Day hikers are so welcome here. I go day hiking. its just a day hike when backpacking. Only we stay out in the hills. I agree on why we mention light kit. Also for me the UL scene lost connection with the rest, lost the fun to be had walking with others, the knowledge that could be gained and shared. UL lost it, never had it and is pointless and not a base thing I wish, or will ever identify with.
Great post, Martin. For most of us, it's first and foremost about getting out, not about the gear. There's too much elitism in the world already, it's both sad and laughable that it has entered the hiking scene. But if someone wants to nitpick over their equipment for the sake of nitpicking, that's fine with me, which means that I don't think UL is dead any more than tinkering and fiddling with your bike is dead. But hopefully the snobbish attitude will be put to rest soon – it looks ridiculous from the outside. I'm not leaving my DSLRs at home just to follow some UL standard.
Agreed on all points although have found myself obsessing about weight in the past. I now have a good setup that will cover all but the more extreme weather the UK can throw at me so I refuse to invest anymore time and money on gear unless I break rip or wear something out. I do like the thought of being light on my feet but also like the thought of cooking up a feast in my tent while led on a nice comfy mattress in my sturdy tent and not eating a bag of nuts under a flimsy bit of tarp in a bin bag! Maybe that's the extremes and I believe that the amount of kit carried is down to the individual
This is the sensible level to reach in the end: just light enough to do the job effectively and suit our comfort level, so we can forget about our gear altogether and take in the wild landscape.
It's good to experience the spectrum of weight vs performance vs comfort, but finding your own point on it is all that matters.
Nicely worded Martin.
I'm not an advocate of UL, but I'd never dismiss it.
My tent is far from UL and my pack isn't exactly UL either.
Kit for me has to be comfortable and practical, first and foremost.
Oh, I'll add I'm far from an experienced backpacker, but the little I've done, I've enjoyed with the kit I've got.
Sorry to add another comment, but I've been catching up on a few bookmarked links.
One that came to my attention, regarding ice axe weight and I quote;
"Weight
Ice axes are now available that only weigh 2 nanograms and have helium filled shafts (maybe!). The problem with today’s obsession with lightness is that a general purpose axe needs some weight to allow a good swing for efficient step cutting and good penetration in hard ice. Axes also take a lot of abuse and ultralight materials just aren’t going to be as durable for long term mountain use. Despite the desire to get your total pack weight down to 600grams this is one area where you need some clout."
Taken from the following link; http://www.peakmountaineering.com/advice-articles/kit-reviews-advice/lord-of-the-swings/
Had to laugh at James' comment there Martin - I don't think the fact that I was carrying 2 sleeping bags helped with my pack weight! My winter bag was knackered and I still wanted to go out, so I stuck 2 lighter ones in instead which together weighed rather more than the other one :) Still, I've got a lovely, new, winter one now.....
On a more serious note, I think we all know what we as individuals like/need to have with us for our comfort and enjoyment of the outdoors, and in my humble opinion it's not a good thing to try and slavishly follow someone else's idea of what we should or shouldn't take in order to get the rucsac weight down to some magical number. By all means take an interest in other ideas, but temper them according to what you know your own needs are. :)
"Never will they say that new down jacket is a bit more in weight, more durable and better. They cant see, nor will see we don't care about UL and its label."
Wise words, and one of the reasons I've virtually given up taking any notice of gear reviews in TGO, Trail and the like.
I once saw a review of boots describe one pair at 1120g as "heavy" and another at 1100g as "light". Huh? Who decided that 1110g for a pair of boots was the dividing line between good and evil? Any why dismiss an otherwise decent product on that basis? How do you know what I might want from a pair of boots anyway?
These days I read a bit, contemplate a lot, and apply my own criteria to purchases. :-)
Must admit I've never heard of ultra light backpacking.Completely passed me by.I could have carried our house house on me back and knocked off a few hills and 25 miles when younger day after day.Suspect Ultra Light is another way of retailers selling you unnecessary & overpriced gear? As I'm ultra tight I wouldn't fall for it ! I've never weighed my pack or cut the handle off my toothbrush in 30 odd years & still happily clocking up miles & nights out. If someone invented gear that didn't get heavier when wet I might be interested....
Mikkel nitpicking is in a sense being self critical, and planning and, which I do it a lot. But identity in an ideal that has never as Maz put it well - never been alive, but sadly is a way of thinking/identity which is now so loathed, out of touch, divisive and failed needs to die. But your right I fear it wont but hopefully the snobbish attitude gets lost. Maz like you and me carries a DSLR for his reasons and us ours. Not to carry one to tick a baseweight in pursuit of a label of UL is sad and pointless.
Dogrob I wish I was more in control of replacing kit when its broke only. I tinker, and am obsessing with it. But so true you are it is down to the individual. Our aims, desires and outcomes we seek. Well said.
Geoff, Amen. It's not rocket science. As I wrote in my lighting up post. We define our comfort limits and needs. When someone has to asks if their kit baseweight is acceptable to attend a UL summit its says it all. Sad/divisive/elitist nonsense
Peak Rambler stick with comfortable and practical, first and foremost and your experience as it adds up will tell you this. Got it right from the start. Lighting up pack weight is so not about having lots of light kit. Sure I believe light kit works, but often there is some solid/reliable/durable item that might weigh a little more but delivers so much more in durability, performance and we still are carrying alight load. But I digress in that UL as an identity for identity sake and aim is pointless and needs to go. Thanks for sharing.
Chrissie Spot on: "t's not a good thing to try and slavishly follow someone else's idea of what we should or shouldn't take in order to get the rucsac weight down to some magical number" Identity stupidity and one of the reasons UL is failed. Well said.
Jules it's a sad reality we have kit defined by a magic line of grams. PHD offer make your own design. Now I read people on about lightest designs for a sleeping bag. Well I don't care so much now. Being warm is most critical when sleeping. But layering and so can mean a bag that is light can be pushed on the big trips with cold nights. But UL designs never think the most wear and tear is the inner. You move and turn in your sleep and put stress on the inner material. So few seem to think that and opt for a more heavier inner material that will last longer on the PHD design your own. Obsessing for that UL tag/label/identify leads to a case of cant see the wood for the trees. Your right, research: Apply own aims/needs/outcomes needed and then buy kit.
Andy we salute you. You have missed arrogant, big headed, divisive, bollicks in abundance. UL is in a sense BPL in its current form. Others here correctly detail some of its history. Firms now in mass and main stream make UL kit and charge for it. But many backpackers do have light kit. Kit now is lighter and its easy to have good kit and have a light pack. Its not hard, a mystery and far from the elitist world so often clung to by some. It just backpacking. As for never weighing kit. I have and will. But I am self critical. You are the guy UL followers just don't get. You go out, have a great time, have skills and experience galore. You don't get the UL thing and wont. They don't get you can do that as they are so chasing an identity instead of stopping and seeing you can backpack as you see it. Not as others tell you. keep clocking up those miles.
Martin, I am old enough to remember as a boy taking a backpack made out of canvas with leather shoulder straps and wearing a waxed cotton cagoule! That was 1973/74. I did my first overnight back pack. A few years later I had a aluminum framed rucksac which was lighter and more comfortable. Now my kit is much lighter, that's progress I guess. I was just as happy in those early days as I am now.
Kit in my mind should be light as you get it or can afford that does the job. No point taking it if it falls apart after a few days. However one must not obsess about it.
I still go backpack with my 2kg Hilleberg tent when I think the conditions warrant it or when I go with my sons and they take my lighter tent. Does this make the experience less enjoyable? I am fine about people who want to weigh every gram, but as long as they don't ram it down our throats and say they are better than the rest of us, because
I know that not to be true. Each to his/her own and after all we are all backpackers in the end as you say !
Well said Mark well said.
Andrew:
What exactly is ‘UL as a way of selecting kit’? By not taking what you don’t need? That’s not ‘ultra’ anything, it’s just common fucking sense ;)
Skurka definitely didn’t say anything new. I said the same a few months ago, and myriad others have said the same before that, and since. But it takes a popular and well respected figure head to bring it to the masses. There’s nothing wrong with people bowing down and taking note of Andrew Skurka. He’s evidently an enormously experienced backpacker – he’s like Chris Townsend in that respect. He doesn’t use nicely taken pictures and reams of verbosity to cloud the fact that really he doesn’t know, or do, jack. So what’s wrong with people bowing down to him? He’s exactly the kind of person ‘backpacking’ as a pastime needs! Young, good looking, educated and, let’s face it, harder than the rest of us.
I’m not sure that alpinists are the best example to go with. Sure, they cut their pack weights everywhere they can, but that’s because they carry an awful lot of technical gear (crampons, ropes, ice axes, snow anchors, shovels and whatever else). And they certainly don’t take kathoola microspikes because they’re lighter. I’ve never seen an alpinist or a climber with an ultralight rope. Can you imagine that? “Sure, it’s only 7mm and might wear through and snap at any moment, but it sure is easier to carry”.
As for the camera, you’re right, there are people who need certain types and amounts of equipment. Terry makes his living by documenting the hills. Aren’t you a barrister?
The 'UL' concept was born out of the general movement towards paying attention to the weight of your equipment, taking it to the logical conclusion of seeing how far it could go. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately the grandiosity that accompanies calling anything ‘ultra’ gave the followers a hugely undeserved sense of importance and superiority. It’s a running joke now about Hendrik and spending a night in the woods. And it does always seem to be that the UL evangelists are the ones who only do very short trips. This might be because the equipment isn’t up to much, or it might be because they’re not up to much. They might just not have the time, or the inclination. But the flip side is that the people who spend a great deal of time outdoors (tracksterman, Mountain Rescue, guides) are definitely NOT ultra-light. And that says it all, really.
I'm not sure I can add much here other than to say I've never really trucked with the whole classification thing, which I think I've made reasonably clear in a number of blog posts.
If you can get something that is light and performs then great, but I won't go for weight over function or sacrifice requirements. Spending the night on a hillside with my feet in a Tesco bag isn't my idea of a good time. I will always pack what I need to be safe and comfortable on the hill, if it weighs <10kg then great, if it weighs more I'm not that fussed, in fact I often take a bigger pack on short trips to help with maintaining fitness.
If people have to count grams to that degree they are either massively unfit or they are just in it for the geek factor and not for the experience. If they really think shaving a few grams makes you go further and faster how come the trip reports don't reflect that?
Gear is a tool, not an end in itself. I love good gear only if it helps me go out and up and maximise the fun I have outdoors.
I've said it before and will say it again, I'm not ultralight, I'm ultra-enjoyment, so I'm with you all the way on this Martin.
Hi jake,
Ul is pointless identity claptrap that is just hyperbole bollicks of the highest order.
Climbers never seem to cut the weight of essentials like rope or a friend now do they. A fair point.
Skurka never said nothing new but it was timed well, and well received. Still he uses cat cans for stoves (fuel inefficient BTW) and light shelters. He has a rival in hiking miles. Justin Lichter who book has the words: Hiking and backpacking. Not UL fancy that. He walked trails like the AT, CDT, and PCT carrying a tent in a rucksack weighing more that 450g. Amazing! No pepsi can stove either. What is he thinking :)
He hiked 10.000 plus miles in 365 days. Takes a tent and uses a decent rucksack that is not silly light and will unlike some UL clap trap about frameless packs taking the weight work in the real world.
Litchers book is for me a good read. Skurkas is not the must buy. Good points in it. But do you piss while walking to save time?
DSLR is a red rag to a bull of late it seems. Well lets assume I spend over 1k to get a camera that is light and can be as good as my DSLR which costs a lot less. Some who rave about cameras do seem to forget that the ones they push cost a lot.
Hendrick said he would write a response to the UL is dead claims soon. Mind you he is busy filming the A-Z of UL. Ethics, gas stoves, trail shoes, and stuff we all use. Except we call it backpacking. So at the current rate expect a response in 2015 :)
Last point. Pete AKA soapbox Trackmaster man does seem to get out lots. I do like the blog he writes, but I don't know the miles or routes done. It's a snap shot blog. I do believe he does go far and he does go remote in China. Top blog that.
Michael ultra-enjoyment sounds like common sense. Good points. I knocked the Cumbria Way off in 2.5 days with a light load. But your right not many seem to push the miles going light.
PTC did WHW in 3 days. Light and fast. There is a place for it. Time is short and the like. But most who go the UL route seem to forget they do no more miles with the guy taking a bit more, who is just as happy and has that bit more to enjoy the wild camp on a wet windy night. Well said.
He does use cat can stoves. I suppose that when you’re literally in the middle of Alaska, where there are no paths let alone roads for 1000 miles, a stove that has no working parts and can be easily replaced and repaired, takes up no space and weighs sod all is the one to go for. Although the trangia is the same except a bit heavier and impossible to break…
You really can’t compare the AT or PCT with what Skurka did in Alaska – no paths vs a motorway through the woods? I know which one I’d find harder. The triple crown trails have plenty of places to stop and resupply at REI stores and the like. Alaska? Not so much. But you get my point – Skurka has gear requirements that none of us will ever need. Although I hadn’t heard of Justin Lichter so I’ll read his book before I say any more on that.
I was a bit underwhelmed by Skurka’s book – but that’s probably because I pretty much agreed with or already thought along those lines. There was nothing in it that made me go ‘huh… gotta try that’. I’d love a proper novel about the Alaska trip, though…
Well I have a DSLR; a 450D that cost £230 off evilbay with battery grip, remote shutter release and a couple of other bits, and an £80 50mm prime lens. I’m happy with it, it takes vastly superior pictures to the superzoom I had previously. I simply can’t afford £1000 for a Nex7, not that I would buy one if I could. My view on cameras is that you can take shit pictures with a 5D, just as easily as a camera phone. The difference between a photographer and fauxtographer is never the camera.
Tracksterman. Yeah, good point. There’s no guaranteeing it’s not a bollocks, I suppose. But I’m the positive sort, so I choose to believe ;) He does seem to have an extremely enviable lifestyle.
Hendrik… ahhh, bless. Where is he with the videos? Has he hit ‘A’ yet?
jake,
Lichter since 2002 has walked over 35,000 miles. He has all the big trails, more on top, hiked across Iceland, Scandinavia, did 1800 solo walk in Africa and nearly got eaten by lions. Oh he also walked across the Himalayan range. Then he also swam around Lake Tahoe. Not bad hey.
Catcan is ok, but there are better meths stoves that wont break and are more efficient. I am a Skurka fan. he needs to write a book about the Alaska Yukon walk. yes I got the signed NG copy of him.
Canon 550D for me to learn more camera skills. Love it. Battery life is superb. So much better than the Nex-5.
Hendrick is up to some point I forget. Way behind and says he has reasons. Yet he was claiming costs to film. So go to work. After all UL must work in the rain they claim, so film in the fecking rain and show us :)
apparently someone did a test recently where one wore all the latest kit and someone wore stuff from the late 1800's and there was not a great deal of difference - its safe enough its good enough i'd say
1800's kit was used by fit people Paul. Fitness is lost on some now. No good being on the hills any time or time period and being unable to make full use off the time we have out there. Interesting points and I shall have to read more. Getting fitter and more skilled is my push at the moment. I got to out of shape with the time going on the new baby and lack of sleep. Now she is a bit older I am back to norm and training hard again. Thanks.
Hi Martin,
I'm just catching up with posts as i have been out walking. (Not backpacking this time). Interesting subject and a great deal of comment.
My first 15 yrs backpacking, and that's all i did, was completely devoid of the words light weight. I took what the conditions required and a bit more for the possibility of something going wrong. I roped items to the outside of my framed rucksack. Sometimes it included a gallon of fuel. Ha.
I cannot remember what sparked my change to seriously consider going lighter. It was probably due to a combination of Mike Parsons, Ralph Blain my climbing instructor and a worsening back condition.
Although i have NEVER gone ultra light i find the need to be lighter. Simply, it's more enjoyable.
Reading the comments on Dave C blog i agree with Damian that with experience we should pass on the things we have learnt so that others can benefit. I too see so many backpackers carrying ridiculous amounts of gear for a weekend in the Lakes.
The packs i saw in New Zealand were in my eyes beyond belief.
When Sheila and I got together she had never backpacked wilderness but had backpacked around the world on a year out. She had no idea about going lighter. She does now and is keen to explain the concept to her colleagues who still take 14 dresses and 14 pairs of shoes on a two week holiday.
Thought i would finish with a bit of comedy.
Sorry for the long comment.
Long comments are always welcome here Alan. As you know I am all for less. It's about what we need Vs what we don't. But needs are the persons choice and their aims, conditions and the like. I am not knocking the take what you need approach and not light kit. I am against UL as a goal for Ul sake and identity - as well as how its knocked people who take more as its their choice, their aims and their enjoyment. UL needs to go crawl under rock an not come out again as far as I am concerned. Lets focus on skill, fitness, planning, kit selection for the trip and then the walk and sharing of it after. In the end we all like the walk bit. Appreciate the comments and input
Personally I find the entire topic of gear rather tedious. There's too much of it - yapping about it, that is. I think the UL trend is just part of a wider picture. Recently it just happens to be dominated by UL concerns and its all tied up with commercial interests, and companies developing light gear because they know thats where the interest lies. Thus you get Laserlites trying to beat weight records - and succeeding - but only with toothpick pegs.
I love light gear but its all a matter of proportion: in terms of what you pay, what the benefits are, how long it lasts, and how much you yap about it. When I discovered how light modern tents and rucksacks were, that was the prompt to get me hill camping. I thought it would be heavy drudgery but thats not really the case.
And there are other variables too, barely ever mentioned, such as how long your trip is. For a quick one nighter with two days walking - worthwhile if you get it right - I don't mind the weight of some decent food added to - what? - very little in my rucksack. And ditto with my rucksack - the 45 litre ULA conduit is much bigger than you need for a short trip but I don't think it's worth extra expense to buy another smaller rucksack because the Conduit is so impressively light for what it is.
Finally another thing I've noticed - which is really part of the above - is how fashion dictates what people yap about and are interested in. A fine product is a fine product. The Akto for example is just that (not for me, too small, but many people use them), and the fact that there are now other more fashionable choices like the Trailstar doesn't suddenly mean the Akto is redundant - like its a fashion game and the Trailstar is this season's colour. But I think that happens. While developments take place - ie product improvements better than older options - I don't think that entirely correlates with the gossip and the opinions.
By the way - is that photo Crinkle Crags to the Scafells, Martin?
I'd say he's looking at Great Gable from somewhere north of it, James ;) Could be wrong. But that's defo Great Gable in the background. Aye, I'm sad....
Yes I think you're right actually - the overall shapes reminded me of CC to Scafells but that 'pudding' shape is surely Gable!
James. Trailstar is the in thing, the current darling to have. Sold mine. But good point on. Its al down to our needs and wants. I wanted a door more than a view to be honest.
Lets look at an example of going the wrong road.
Photo is looking to Gabel. Taken from Glaramara. So you and Terry are spot on.
I used a Nikon D40 on auto. Fancy that. I had no idea about a DSLR then, and went for a LX3. Kinda thought DSLR was heavy and all that. Stupid thinking. Kit we use is personal. I now go the my way route and that is it. I also like auto as Brett Trafford said its useful. He is good with a camera so I do.
Akto is crap, gives a shower for you in the morning and is over priced. But I am honest in my view and its cramped too. But I did use one a lot. So a fair review from me there :)
Anyway thanks for the comment and we will sort that meet up in the new year with Steve and co.
What a great post and debate. I have never considered weight when buying an item. For me its been function first, comfort second, does it make me look good third, does it make me feel good fourth, cost last. If i want to go UL i could always lose a few pounds or stones com to think of it and I suspect most people could. The best thing about gear is that its shiny and shops have lots of it and I can dream away a whole afternoon in a shop. Wheres the harm in that. I love reading all you gents and ladies who have adventures far more exciting than mine and I enjoy reading what you have to say about kit, its interesting and informative. But in the end i still stick to my 5 steps outlined above. Thats why i have 3 no 4 compasses i guess.
Thanks Paul. I will write about kit, but also about mistakes and wrong roads I have gone down kit wise. We learn fast out doors about kit when its cold and wet.
UL obsession with the newest shinny toy chasing that base weight goal is sad to see. Chase the sunset and summit view outdoors is what matters.
Here, here. Well said.
HJ
Hi Martin
As a fell runner, walkers often tease me saying 'you wont have time to enjoy the views'.
The standard reply is that 'I will see more but in less time'.
This is of course just a bit of banter. Being out there enjoying just 'being out there' is what is all about.
Not to be rude, Martin, but I'm a bit worried if the discussion here is, occasionally, missing the point and starting to remind the things you (we) critizized in the first place. Like:
"Ul is pointless identity claptrap that is just hyperbole bollicks of the highest order."
Can be, but doesn't have to (and shoudln't) be. Unless you mean by UL the bad attitude of some representing it.
"Justin Lichter who book has the words: Hiking and backpacking. Not UL fancy that. He walked trails like the AT, CDT, and PCT carrying a tent in a rucksack weighing more that 450g.
- -
Takes a tent and uses a decent rucksack that is not silly light and will unlike some UL clap trap about frameless packs taking the weight work in the real world."
It almost sounds like you'd be trying to say that taking (a little bit) heavier gear is a better way to do backpacking? And so called UL gear is bad? Wasn't this supposed to be about identities and false ideas of false superiority? ... and people despicing others because of their kit choises? And that was something wrong with the UL people, not with the sensible backpackers like you (us). Maybe we ought to be a bit more careful with our choise of words?
"Catcan is ok, but there are better meths stoves that wont break and are more efficient."
But is there something wrong if it works for the intented purpose? Shouldn't "good enought" kit be "good enough", and with it we could concentrate on backpacking. Not on the kit and classifying people by their kit choises... Right?
Jim,
Thanks. Lets not lose sight identity politics only divides Sharing insight, tips and skills will unit.
Steve you are a fast on your feet and make a good point. "Out There" is where I like to be. Thank.
Jaakko,
I am clear that I am a backpacker and don't accept the UL identity as a way of backpacking or superior way of backcountry travel. I am using and will use very light kit if it works for me and have no issue with others using kit of their choice.
Its kit and all kit out there has varied weight. Why we need to label it UL or SUL is not helping. Just share how it works in the area used and give insight into its merits. I am for sharing kit list, weights in total. Call it gear addiction, but its helpful to many to see what was used by others I am convinced.
Litcher talks sense in that he sees kit like a rucksack needs to be able to support the load and be comfy with durability before the weight of it comes into play.
DSLR comment is about recent comments on how many are wrong taking them into the hills. So I will point out cost of the mirror less ones that equal a DSLR with a good sensor size cost a lot more. Function/cost all matter in kit choice. Why is it some (UL mostly) seem to say weight first?
Kit is first about the function we need, durability matters depending on the trip length and finances, and weight for me, and many comes into it - but not the first need for me. So yes, some increases in kit weight can/could deliver a bit more! But I am not saying its superior or have. UL position people have said others are idiots for not adopting UL.
Catcan stoves I have made, used and feel they are flimsy and fuel inefficient. So a more solid and efficient burner that weighs 70g could offer more but still be very light.
I am not despising kit choice. I don't accept UL elitist looking down on me and others for not accepting the gospel as preached or practised.
I do agree with your closing line a lot. Appreciate the concern.
Glad to see balanced comments from Basti and Maz, but an awful lot of this sounds like villagers heading for the castle to deal with Dr Frankenstein. At one of my last weekends with the Backpackers Club, I made the mistake of saying that Beyond Backpacking was quite interesting and got slaughtered for it. I just don't understand the psychology of not wanting to develop.
Basti makes a good point about infirmity. Mine is middle age. UL gear lets me do trips as good as those I enjoyed back in the Eighties.
Without UL where would Hike-Lite, who sold me my Cave, MLD, suppliers of my BugBivy, and Oookworks be? These aren't big, cynical companies.
Remember, you don't have to read the comments of Americans whose main hobby is the internet. UL UK has great potential - waterproofs being the first thing in the bag.
Zed Backpackers Club are not this blog. Mention Ray Way and Beyond backpacking and you will have a discussion with me as Basti did.
"Dr Frankenstein" really? .....Lets recap.
DaveC reads me comment and says identity Politics of UL is dead. I also wrote:
"It has a legacy in that it got people to lighten up, to see they needed less, and kit does not need to get in the way. But the movement has become elitist"
I am not knocking use and skill of using light kit. I also take/use/own/will use light kit.
I get called spartan by some for the little I take. Some would say my kit is border what is deemed UL. Yet I see no identity in UL, nor see the point of writing a trip report and putting photos of other backpackers on it with heavy packs and big loads to take the piss out of them. I also regret tags and labels like lightweight. Inclusive and sharing are better I feel.
This summer I walked the 100 Mile Wilderness. My kit was light, yet others had more. Did they see less? Did they have less fun? Many did it faster than me. I took what I thought I needed. Others what they deemed they needed. In the end we backpacked.
Would many firms be about if they had no label of UL. Yes/No. In the end good kit sells and word spreads.
UL is also an illusion to many. The claims of better are really proven. The ones who do the TGOC for example don't seem to bag more summits, nor clock up more miles. I can see why it's not setting the TGOC world alight. Yet lighter is noted and adopted in as it is seen as sensible and proven. So more Laser Comps now than the Akto and there is the Trailstar.
Illusion again is in the UL claim of weight saved I once pointed out a claim that a Cuben DuoMid is lighter by 1/2 the weight over a Laser Comp is a false assumption. Add the need to have trekking poles and add a bivy or ground sheet, stakes and the likes and the weight of some set ups is .5kg over that of the person who does not take poles and has a Laser comp. There are more examples. For example meths stoves are lighter. Wrong once its used over a few days. Very wrong if you brew up three times a day and cook hot meals in the morning and evening. My point is the UL message is often wrong.
Now many buy from the main shops on our streets kit that gives them a light load and costs not too much. Many use trail shoes etc. To get the loads so radical and out there only a few years ago takes no effort or much insight now.
We all take less and age does focus the need no doubt. I always found that as I was carrying it I sought to take less and always have sought to lighten up my pack load. But ultimately at the base level the need to identify in something that divides and does not include all is something I wont to do. Just go backpacking. If its light kit, or heavy kit you take is the choice you make.
Good comment and adds a challenge to the debate. I always find your writing provoking and insightful. Thanks.
Thank you for the nice words, Martin.
I think I understand the politics of identity, although Dave C uses some mighty big words - just what I'd expect from a sociologist! My main point is in my penultimate sentence. There is no need to engage with those who take it to far.
But it is sad when we have to bin something we once enjoyed and learned from because it's been over-run. I confess to having had less tolerance with the ultralight, night-in-the-woods crowd than you. My BPL membership expired years ago.
But there have been gains from ultralight thinking, most memorably for me, the long and totally fabulous day in the rain from Uisge Misgeach to Bearnais over three big Munros. Using the lightest kit I possessed meant I had been able to find room for fresh food and a Canon D450.
BTW, I never know whether to count poles as part of the overnight set up because I take a tent if I'm not using poles, for example when cycle touring.
Hi Martin,
what a grand discussion your post has kicked off. I always enjoy your blog and this expression of views from so many is refreshing.
For my ten-penneth worth (taking inflation into account :) ), here are my thoughts:
I ascribe to the common view amongst many and take kit that is fit for purpose when walking and camping. When I buy and use kit I look at its design, its cost, it functionality, its weight and its aesthetics. So I take a balanced approach to my kit. If its light all the better but it has to be fit for purpose otherwise its art for art's sake.
I used to be a member of BPL for a year but was turned off by the sycophantic panderings of many on there to certain UL "gurus" and the UL ethos in general. I love to get as light as I can but the reasons for doing this are purely personal.
1. I have a small spine deformity and also damaged neck vertebrate (due to a car accident). This means I have to lighten my load as much as is safe and practical to do so. If I dont I wont enjoy my outdoors experiences and could cause more damage.
2. I was turned off by the Duke of Edinburgh approach to gear in the 80's which saw me lumping 15-20kg loads around the Brecon Beacons. Why was everything so heavy...!
3. The science of going light appealed to my sense of logic. I mean the lighter you are (to a point) the quicker and more comfortable you will be in the outdoors.
BUT, I have never set myself a 10lb or similar UL target to achieve. I have never skimped on safety and also never skimped on comfort. When I make a kit list, I ensure I have all the items I need for that particular trip.
The trick for me is finding worthwhile, useable lightweight items because they work not because they achieve a certain weight. The weight is a bonus. By trying to reduce my overall weight at the right time with the right items it helps me go further and better. I have no interest in achieving a UL standard (whatever that is :) ) I am just looking for a good compromise.
Going back to the 80's and my pain of doing DofE expeditions I started a conscious effort to go lighter there and then. Not because anyone told me to (in fact all the people around me were proposing the opposite) but becuase it felt logical and beneficial to do so.
I ditched the 3kg tent and got a 2kg tent. I ditched the boots and got fabric mids and then approach shoes. I went for thinner layers and fast drying clothing. I ditched the external framed rucksack for an unframed one and I lightened my sleeping bag. I also started using pasta and dehydrated food. I nearly halved my pack weight and found it made a huge difference.
The funny thing is that I havent lost much more weight in the past 20 years even with radical advances in lightweight kit. The reason? I have added weight back in where and when required (adding a phone, a gps, a camera, a laminated map!) so it balances out.
So whats my packweight these days? It doesnt matter. Its as simple as that. I know what I need and what I take for a certain set of conditions and when I put it on my back it feels good.
So whats my point? :D I dont like labels and I certainly dont like sneering condescending people implying that if you dont achieve a certain set of criteria you are inferior. Long live individuality and the right to carry what you damn well want into the hills. As long as you are safe, happy and able thats as good as it gets
Dave,
I am glad you like the blog. It always pushes me to keep it going with feedback like that. A great comment and adds so much to the ones before. Well said, and great points. It takes time to write comments and so many here who have shared has left a great insight for others to mull over and reflect on the points.
The landscape’s beauty attest to its years of battling with nature’s harsh reality. It is really amazing how much such amazing sights emerge from violent storms, eruptions and upheaval from the earths surface to its inner depths. I love it so much!
I once was packing quite (not really ulta-) light some 20-25 years ago (when Ray Jardine was unknown to me) carrying something like 13kgs (28lbs) through Europe on backpacking trips in the late 80s early 90s considering the gear (e.g. a very thin ultralight and ultra-uncomfortable aluminum "matress" I bought at a department store) that was available at this time, my approach, as radical as it seemed, was only a natural conclusion derived by my common sense as a former boy-scout. Throughout the years, after discovering such comforts like a big cozy termarest (and discomforts like sleeping in an ultralight 40F downbag at 12000feet and 15F - talking about "stupid light"), my gear unintensionally transformed into something that could have easily competed with the average Everest base camp (including 3 course gourmet camping meals - yes, I love to cook - however I never had a kitchen sink with me). Not only because of the lack of sherpas in the Californian sierra nevada (my favourite hiking destination) my style (an therefore "label" I guess) changed from "backpacker" to "day hiker" (including the 5star base camp / car-camping by default).
Until last fall, where me and my girlfriend got so frustrated when at little yosemite valley, we had tons of energy and plenty of daylight left but not enough water to carry on (even though there was a nice stream at our feet - we also had no water filter) so that we had to turn around. That day we decided to take gear with us on our future hikes. Well the problem we encountered was that in order to maintain our camping comfort we would have to haul our 100lbs of gear up to clouds rest?! Lucky us, I remembered my lighter gear from the 1980s and discovered that there had been quite an evolution in light equipment since then. So today, after reading millions of blog posts like yours (thank everybody in the ultralight community) and quite some gear improvements, we are now carrying something like 11.8kg (26.5lbs) around (including food for 2-3days and some water - baseweight around 10-11lbs) without missing out on good food and other luxuries we now have a hybrid approach inbetween hiking and camping so we would not consider ourselves ultralight even though we now prepare our gearlist for every trip (like I used to do some 25 years ago).
Looking through all these blogs I can completely relate to your post as there is a lot of elitist and missionary talk among "ultralighters" and even though we are using a similar approach (again) which is more related to common sense than a baseweight, I would not like to be associated with that part of the scene and I don't feel comfortable using the term ultralight. I find that especially in Europe (I am German) there is a certain missionary and elitist notion to the "movement" as it is relatively new and still quite uncommon here (considering the very big backpacks that are seen on trails here). A lot of blogs here make fun at the heavy lifting turtles even though most of the authors must have been among them only a few years ago. Even Basti (who by the way has an excellent Blog !!!) sometimes pokes fun at the heavy haulers and the other day, I saw in a thread that the owner of "Laufbursche" claimed that gossamer gear stole his pack cover idea (I am wondering how he came to the relatively recent idea to manufacture backpacks) how stupid, it made me buy the much nicer designed gossamer gear pack instead of a laufbursche (and I am extremely happy with the gg pack). I was thinking of joining an UL meeting here in Germany but after reading things like this I got turned off.
Best,
Mark
Mark,
Thank you for such a detailed and informative comment. Your story helps to show my points so well. We are backpackers and yes going lighter has benefits. But it's backpacking - we can do without the elite attitude.
Chasing a UL identity is self defeating in the end. Your points on poking fun out big packs is true. Its pointless and just divides community.
I am truly thankful for this comment at a time of asking is the blog of value to have someone take the time to leave so much to the debate has lifted my spirit, and for that alone thanks.
BTW Gossamer Gear make fine kit. I sold my old Gorilla on as the material did not fit a wet climate. But superb pack comfort wise. Their new ones look very good. A good friend of mine is an Ambassador for them and I had a look at a lot of their kit last summer. Top stuff and good choice.
Mark have you a link to that Laufbursche thread please ?
Hi Martin,
Thank you for your quick reply. The thread was in German and I can not recall where it was as I have spend the last months researching so much. I just remember that it was in a longer conversation among ULers. I think it is not such a big deal that people claim things like this (its probably human in a strange way and Laufbursche is a fine company I guess the guy had a bad day) and as much as I dislike the elitist behaviour, I am also very thankful about all the advise I was able to get by reading blogs and threads on UL camping and hiking. I guess heavy hauling will just die eventually because going lighter makes so much more sense that it will become mainstream (Yesterday, I read, that the north face has a "new" approach for 2013 offering a set/system of clothing that will function together and will weight very little - sounds familiar? :)). Your Blog is great, keep it up please.
My Girlfriend and I got the Mariposa, which are perfect for our hybrid approach as the packs are big enough to accomodate some luxuries we somtimes like to take, they are also great because the provide the additional space and weight necessary for wintercamping (where I would like to have the option of taking my old, bulky and heavy geodesic tent especially in snow) at the same time, they also work well when the are only half loaded - so alltogether I think they are extremely versatile. We use inside pack liners to handle rain (and as it has not been that rainy since christmas I don't know how they hold up in a mid-european downpour but the fabric seems very water repellent). Its very amazing how you don't feel the packs on your back at all. The only issue I have is merely aesthetic, they should be symmetrical like the Gorilla, they look quite odd from behind - but on the other hand the big outside pocket is quite handy.
Best,
Mark
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the nice words regarding my blog.
As for poking fun on others: Well, those who know me, know that I poke fun on all kind of things. Even on myself! ;-)
I just don't want to take things to serious. After all hiking is my hobby, not my religion! (But even there I can't resist a good joke or two...)
Speaking of Laufbursche, the conversation you're talking about was only partly via the internet so missing a lot of points and thus probaply giving a false meaning to some things. After all he's a very friendly and open minded guy. Probaply sometimes to friendly and generous for someone who wants to run a company. ;-)
Nontheless I think it's time that we look ahead and leave old storys behind!
E.g. I still have no idea where I shall go hiking this year with my wife...
Good Morning Basti, thank you very much for your reply. You are probably right and as I wrote, the conversation was longer and even though, I was turned off when I have read it, I guess it is not such a big deal after all. I am also happy for Laufbursche and the fact that there is a German cottage "industry" developing. I find your blog (and I think I have almost read every bit of it during tha last months) very entertaining humerous and extremely educating. I also think that you write very balanced and neutral (That is why I wrote "EVEN Basti sometimes pokes fun" - so please no offence) I think you have a relatively extreme approach and your gear would be way to light for my personal taste but I completely understand your approach especially when considering back problems. As we just started to go lighter (quite a big step from car-camping/day-hiking back to backpacking which I thought I will never do again in my age) and we are still in a sort of hybrid "phase" where we don't cover to many kilometers and still enjoy camping out, I guess our packs will lighten up more during the coming months. However, your Blog inspired us to take on the GR 20 a more hiking and less camping oriented trip (lets see if we will manage we are already preparing for it).
For destinations, I can strongly recomment the US, where I have day-hiked for the last 20 years, the wilderness and landscape is amazing hard to find something like it in Europe especially without moskitos and rain (Norway Finland Sweden) and even in very touristy spots (like Yosemite) it is not to crowded when you are hiking out in the backcountry.
Well, maybe we will see ourselves in the Eifel or Hohes Venn around the corner (We are from Duesseldorf) the forecast says there is snow this weekend and we are easily spottet with our two asymmetrical (and relatively big) Gossamer Gear packs.
Best, Mark
Basti and Mark,
Again thanks for the input. Laufbursche make what looks top end light equipment. Attention to detail. very nice.
The end point is what is seen as UL is now very normal, very mainstream.
A lot of UL claimed kit lists have in fact very little cottage manufactured kit. A pack and a shelter most often. The rest is the clothing and sleeping bag often made by Montbell, RAB and the like. The point is that its mainstream most often. Its far from the days of Ray and his way. Marks point on the NorthFace says it all.
Both of you have a great year outdoor.
Post a Comment