[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] reliance on gear
I'm not so sure that new tech is the real reason we can go lighter. I got
my ultimate ultralight idea from reading a letter my wife's great, great (6
greats) grampa wrote home about a hiking trip in the army that started in
Virginia and ended 120 miles and 3 days later at Gettysburg. We think of
the historical battle, but he wrote home about the hike.
How'd they manage to march 40 MPD in the Civil War? The veteran regiments
learned ultralight techniques. Basically they just threw all their gear
away. Look at any Civil War photo book. In 1861 shots you see sharp
soldiers on parade with packs on their backs and fancy uniforms. In 1864
shots you see barefoot guys with blanket rolls storming the breastworks.
In the 70's I remember planning for days for long hikes. I'd make up a
menu, plan food weight, debate down vs. fiberfill, cotton vs. wool, go to
A-16 and drool at the fancy stoves and tents I couldn't afford. When I
bought my MSR X-GK stove, my dad just looked at it and said "you spent what?
Why don't you just carry some alcohol and a cup?"
Today I wear fleece instead of wool and silnylon instead of urethane nylon.
Other than that, every item in my 6 1/2 lb skin out weight was available in
1979. The change is in my mind set and confidence, not in the gear that's
available.
Today when people on the trail inquire about my gear, they always ask "what
if . . ." questions. The implication is that if something goes wrong and
you haven't got the right piece of gear you are going to die in the
wilderness. (I guess this comes real close to Dave's question about
climbing protection)
A few weeks ago I met a fellow wandering around lost in the woods with no
gear during a heavy snowstorm. He thought he was going to die. He told me
a tale of gear woes. It started snowing during the night, his tent
collapsed, he couldn't get his Whisperlight lit, his platypus hose froze
solid, his filter pump froze. When he tried to head to civilization his
pack was so heavy that he floundered even with snowshoes on. He abandoned
his pack because he couldn't carry it. All this and the guy's campsite was
only 2 miles from the Ranger Station. When I met him, he felt he was dying
of dehydration, (due to filter and platy failure) yet there was a beautiful
little babbling brook not 100 feet from where we stood.
I hiked back and got his pack for him. It must have weighed 70lbs. He had
everything, even a snow shovel, yet his gear didn't make him safe because he
didn't have the confidence to just placidly wait out a snowstorm. In fact,
his gear made him less safe because it's weight exhausted him.
There's a balance point somewhere. You can't send novices into the woods
ill equipped, but you also can't assume that gear makes you safe. It's
unfortunate that novices, like Boy Scouts who need the gear, most are also
the least able to afford it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "dude" <dude@fastmail.ca>
To: <pct-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [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
> _______________________________________________
> PCT-L mailing list
> PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l