[at-l] gear

[daveh@psknet.com (Dave Hicks)]

----- Original Message -----
From: <DaRedhead@aol.com>
To: <at-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [at-l] gear

SNIP
>                          While it is heavy, because of it's construction
and
> the incredible hip belt, I have found that I can carry at least 15 lbs
more
> comfortably than others wearing "lighter" packs.  All of the advice you
find
> here is in the area of "this worked for me, your method may vary".  So -
> while you may find a lighter pack, or a heavier pack - don't let the
actual
> weight of the pack matter.  Make how comfortable and easy it is to carry
the
> pack with what you need in it matter - in the long run (or hike), that is
the
> difference that counts.
SNIP

Again YMMV, and I have no quarrel with DaRedhead, who speaks for a large
segment of hikers; but as I got older I found a shift in my own take on this
issue.

Earlier, I was a big fan of well suspended externals -- comfort and easy of
the pack with what I wanted to carry in it was what counted.  I could really
expound on fit, back stress, padding on hip belt or shoulder pads, air
passage between pack & back, etc.

Then, somewhere in my late 50's my knees, feet, arthritis, etc. started
sending me a massage.  Total weight, FSO (From Skin Out), has become much,
much, more important to me.

As a results, I have, among my gear, packs running the range of weights and
construction from the two extremes -- a K2 to a G4.

At this point in my life, in the long run (or hike) what counts for me is
reducing the total load -- albeit on short hike (such as maintaining crew
trips) the K2, or Tioga, comes out.  And, I relish the experience of my
salad days when I could comfortably carry a load of nice-but-not-necessary
geehaws for miles.

So, I refrain for advising folk specifically, but suggest that they seek to
understand the tradeoffs, their own body, their comfort level and their
resulting need, etc. and then make the choice for themselves.

Chainsaw