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

Re: [at-l] Frogg Toggs don't gots pockets!



 -- but it ain't got nooo pockets!
>
>Hmph!
>
>huff.
>
>jpJane
>


I'm wondering "aloud thinking" if in our desire to cut ounces and buy the
lightest gear, we've not overlooked, in some cases, some of the "amenities"
or "necessities" or "niceties" that made the original heavier gear
desirable.

For lightness do we sacrifice breathablity with pit zips and chest zips?
For lightness do we sacrifice a pocket to carry our gloves or gorp?
For lightness do we sacrifice the time and concern it takes to be sure we
don't abraid the fabric?
For lightness do we sacrifice the ability to "field repair" with duct tape?
For lightness do we sacrifice better workmanship and stitching?

For short term and section hiking, one can get away with some of the things
that could prove disastrous on a long hike.
What is the final cost of all this "light" gear if it doesn't withstand the
"normal" use of a backpacker.

Is there a "happier medium" between the superlight "temporary" or
"occasional use" items and the heavy-duty Expedition weight clothing and
gear?

You tell me, Coosa


* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================