WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27
  1. #1
    Registered User srestrepo's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-28-2009
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    315
    Images
    9

    Default UL Gear, non UL Pack

    Hello,

    I've been not hiking for a while for a variety of reasons.

    this weekend i was able to cobble together some gear and hike from Mt Riga through to Race brook falls and split that up over two nights.

    In any case, my question is this: Does anyone use mostly/all UL gear inside of a non UL Backpack?

    i know it is a system and that those system tend to work well together however, my backpack - a Deuter Futura Pro 42 - fits me well and is very comfortable.

    i wanted to lighten my load without sacrificing the comfort that it brings. additionally, there are a few pounds i could stand to lose as well so more of a focus for me currently to lose weight from the engine rather than from the bag.

    is this not a great idea or is there something to be had (other than additional weight savings) from using all UL gear?

    my apologies if this has been mentioned before. if it has, i tried to search the forums with no luck.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    01-28-2008
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,907

    Default

    It's totally your decision. A comfy pack is important. I use a mix of very light and heavier gear that suits me without apology.
    "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss

  3. #3
    Registered User Just Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2013
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,770

    Default

    Simple answer:
    If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
    If you ain't got a problem, why look for a solution.

    If anything, you're doing it right. Contents before the container.

    About the only viable reason to upgrade would be to reduce volume. A full pack carries best.
    But as mentioned in a recent thread... partially inflating your pad, leaving your insulation stuffed loose, using a pillow or even zip lock bags/bladders filled with air works.

    Otherwise; SUL packs tend to work better when used as part of a system... but not so much the other way around.

    There's a reason lots of folks like their full suspension packs... they are designed to take a load that is cobbled together. So if you don't have a system.. an osprey, dueter, or similar pack will be able to deal with whatever you toss in (within reason)

    Eventually... you might get bored, or try something and upgrade your pack.
    But for now there is no rush or reason.

    Really... if what you have is working for the trips you do there isn't a good reason. One eventual decent reason would be if you begin to pursue a different style of trip.
    Going for a fast and light summer kit might be a reason that would also go along with the goal of losing a few pounds. That type of kit is likely to be low volume and may require a smaller pack to carry well.
    I've used that type of kit before for that same reason... if I can walk all day comfortably then I'm more likely to do it (and burn more calories doing it).

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    07-21-2014
    Location
    Bar Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Bill View Post
    Simple answer:
    If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
    If you ain't got a problem, why look for a solution.

    If anything, you're doing it right. Contents before the container.

    About the only viable reason to upgrade would be to reduce volume. A full pack carries best.
    But as mentioned in a recent thread... partially inflating your pad, leaving your insulation stuffed loose, using a pillow or even zip lock bags/bladders filled with air works.

    Otherwise; SUL packs tend to work better when used as part of a system... but not so much the other way around.

    There's a reason lots of folks like their full suspension packs... they are designed to take a load that is cobbled together. So if you don't have a system.. an osprey, dueter, or similar pack will be able to deal with whatever you toss in (within reason)

    Eventually... you might get bored, or try something and upgrade your pack.
    But for now there is no rush or reason.

    Really... if what you have is working for the trips you do there isn't a good reason. One eventual decent reason would be if you begin to pursue a different style of trip.
    Going for a fast and light summer kit might be a reason that would also go along with the goal of losing a few pounds. That type of kit is likely to be low volume and may require a smaller pack to carry well.
    I've used that type of kit before for that same reason... if I can walk all day comfortably then I'm more likely to do it (and burn more calories doing it).
    Very well said, as usual. The “broke” might be your desire for an even lighter load. Going lighter has to be balanced with whether you are staying warm enough, comfortable enough, and enjoying yourself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-06-2008
    Location
    Andrews, NC
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,672

    Default

    Use whatever gear works for you and makes you happy. Don't worry about the weight or what people consider ultra light, light, heavy, etc.

  6. #6

    Default

    If you're doing short trips and enjoying it, you're fine. It's about comfort and not having a crazy load that feels like a burden or is excessive enough that it makes you drag out there
    There are a good amount of hikers that go out <10 days a year and spend huge $ on "upgrades" and reading about gear. That's more of a hobby in itself, and doesn't affect you enjoying the backcountry much
    But for those that carry around 40 lbs in the summer for a 3 day hike.... certainly there is great improvement to be had with a small investment and a bit of reading

  7. #7

    Default

    I have used both types of packs...and like both types of packs. I have UL gear but often use my Osprey Aura 50 due to the comfort. It is about 20oz heavier than my UL Arc Haul but is certainly not noticed on my hips, and barely by my legs. I tend to go more for the Aura when I have longer food carries but not always. It is still slightly too large for my needs really as I always end up with a little more space than my gear fills.

    Carry what is comfortable and what fits and carries your gear well.

  8. #8
    AT 2012
    Join Date
    09-11-2006
    Location
    Wallingford, CT
    Age
    72
    Posts
    1,747

    Default

    You are likely to be pleasantly surprised by the weight of straps and loops you can cut off.. be aggressive.
    Lazarus

  9. #9

    Default

    I fit this description.

    First of all, IMO, your pack should be the last thing to go ultralight.

    Once you get your base weight under ~15lbs, the difference between a 2lb pack and a 4.5lb pack is pretty minimal - while being a lot more comfortable and letting you haul heavy loads if needed more comfortably.

    Once my base weight is under 10lbs, I prefer a frameless pack without a hip belt and that's when I go back to my 15oz pack.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srestrepo View Post
    Hello,

    I've been not hiking for a while for a variety of reasons.

    this weekend i was able to cobble together some gear and hike from Mt Riga through to Race brook falls and split that up over two nights. In any case, my question is this: Does anyone use mostly/all UL gear inside of a non UL Backpack?i know it is a system and that those system tend to work well together however, my backpack - a Deuter Futura Pro 42 - fits me well and is very comfortable. i wanted to lighten my load without sacrificing the comfort that it brings. additionally, there are a few pounds i could stand to lose as well so more of a focus for me currently to lose weight from the engine rather than from the bag. is this not a great idea or is there something to be had (other than additional weight savings) from using all UL gear?my apologies if this has been mentioned before. if it has, i tried to search the forums with no luck.
    The only thing better than a comfortable heavy pack is a comfortable UL pack. I find that an UL pack gets more and more comfortable when I carry less and less in it.
    Find the LIGHT STUFF at QiWiz.net

    The lightest cathole trowels, wood burning stoves, windscreens, spatulas,
    cooking options, titanium and aluminum pots, and buck saws on the planet



  11. #11
    Registered User LittleRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-2014
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Age
    38
    Posts
    803
    Images
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srestrepo View Post
    In any case, my question is this: Does anyone use mostly/all UL gear inside of a non UL Backpack?
    i know it is a system and that those system tend to work well together however, my backpack - a Deuter Futura Pro 42 - fits me well and is very comfortable.
    i wanted to lighten my load without sacrificing the comfort that it brings. additionally, there are a few pounds i could stand to lose as well so more of a focus for me currently to lose weight from the engine rather than from the bag.
    is this not a great idea or is there something to be had (other than additional weight savings) from using all UL gear?
    Eh, I don't think it's an issue. I've continued to carry my 5 lb Gregory Baltoro 70 (which I've heard called the Cadillac of backpacks) for years even as I've slowly upgraded most of my other gear to UL. I may eventually replace it, but it's held up really well over the years and it's very comfortable (though my only comparison point is my previous external frame pack, which was the opposite of comfortable). I like having a rigid surface against my back, and I can carry up to 7 days worth of food in it (and I often do). I think the extra capacity will also serve me well next year when I plan to take my 5 year-old son on his first overnight trip.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    It's all good in the woods.

  12. #12
    Registered User srestrepo's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-28-2009
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    315
    Images
    9

    Default

    thanks everyone for your replies. my rationale was seemingly sound given the responses. i was away from the trail for a while and when my younger cousin decided he'd like to get into it, i had already sold off most of my wonderful gear.

    i still have decent gear i think, but it isn't what i used to have - and i'd like to be back where i was gear-wise. what last weekends backpacking trip showed me was that the backpack was comfortable however, my other stuff takes up too much space inside the pack and if i'm to continue to go out for longer and longer trips, in more weather, i'll have to either get a larger bag, or upgrade my stuff to UL gear.

    so i'll pursue that as an avenue for now. i reached out to someone on the forums selling a fly creek UL in an effort to gift my cousin my current tent which is a Big Agnes Lynx Pass 1.

    thanks everyone for the help.

  13. #13

    Default

    There is a holding of court UL mentality that assumes everything in one's kit has to be the most UL. It keeps us locked into a UL merry go round and UL Nirvana seeking an ever lighter kit across all logistics and in all kit pieces. If your non most UL pack works don't be so ill advised to ditch it. UL philosophy does NOT have to be defined by someone else. Define UL for yourself! If that means UL is a balancing out of your ENTIRE kit and logistics to satisfy your UL goals DO IT!

    Hike on.

  14. #14
    Registered User Venchka's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-20-2013
    Location
    Roaring Gap, NC
    Age
    78
    Posts
    8,529

    Default

    Don’t overlook the easiest and least expensive way to lighten your gear load:
    Leave stuff at home!
    Cheers!
    Wayne

  15. #15

    Default

    If you want to lighten your load it's strongly suggested you look (more) intensely at your consumables category. CONSIDER: If out for a 5 day with most carrying about 2 lbs food/day that's 10 lbs in food alone. CONSIDER: Hauling just 1 extra L of H20 is an extra 2.2 lbs with some(many) unnecessarily carrying in excess of 1 L H20. Reduce that food to say 1.5 - 1.75 lbs/day in a personally intended situationally safe manner and it saves you 2.5 - 1.5 lbs in food...AND BULK that snowballs into the option of a lesser volume probably decreased wt pack that is COMFORTABLE TOO. H20 is another item hikers often carry too much of. H20 also takes up a lot of volume(it's concentrated wt!) and can imbalance loads. With hauling lesser water wt and volume one may likely be able to further consider reducing wt and the bells and whistles of a conventional pack. Cha ching cha ching. Add it up and the results, especially for those on fixed tight hiking budgets, and the consumables wt and volume savings can far surpass your pack and possibly any other single gear piece savings. What did it take? To know thyself as a backpacker. To be apprised of conditions. To develop our skill sets beyond just gear purchases and gear knowledge.

    It amazes me as a LD UL sometimes SUL hiker how often we neglect consumable knowledge as we get sidetracked with wt and volumes of gear. This is NOT UL philosophy... as practiced as a more complete approach! It is a skewed narrowed approach ignoring an important UL category that isn't given the attention it rightly deserves...consumables and H20 logistics.

  16. #16
    Registered User srestrepo's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-28-2009
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    315
    Images
    9

    Default

    i think that a lot of this information is applicable to my end goal of having a very comfortable/durable backpack (not to discredit durability or comfort of UL Designed bags). Ultimately, i really enjoy my bag and in an effort of not having to replace it unless it breaks, i'd planned on lightening my gear to allow for more space for food or other gear (i.e. winter insulation, etc.).

    currently i have a Big Agnes Lynx Pass 1. i wanted to go back to hammocking as that stuff was super compressible and worked well for me, but i'm too vested in sleeping pads and such and i dont feel the investment would be prudent. i'm just as comfortable sleeping in a tent. so i'm upgrading my tent to a Big Agnes copper spur 1 which should help.

    my cook kit is set currently as a GSI Soloist with a Snowpeak Gigapower made of titanium. i'm switching that out to a snowpeak 700 with the same stove until i can make an alcohol stove which i was a fan of. I recall buying special ziplock bags and repackaging meals like ramen and oatmeal into them so that i could pour hot water in. the heated bags and food would be placed inside of a reflectix cozy i forgot where igot it from, but it really helped to minimize the bulk from the original food packaging.

    finally, my water filter is an MSR miniworks EX. i'm switching to a 2L bag and a sawyer squeeze.

    I had minimal space on my last trip within my pack for anything else. if i had to be out for longer time i think that i'd be pressed for capacity within my pack, but i'm hoping with the above-mentioned changes, i should free up some space and be able to keep my pack.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwood View Post
    If you want to lighten your load it's strongly suggested you look (more) intensely at your consumables category. CONSIDER: If out for a 5 day with most carrying about 2 lbs food/day that's 10 lbs in food alone. CONSIDER: Hauling just 1 extra L of H20 is an extra 2.2 lbs with some(many) unnecessarily carrying in excess of 1 L H20. Reduce that food to say 1.5 - 1.75 lbs/day in a personally intended situationally safe manner and it saves you 2.5 - 1.5 lbs in food...AND BULK that snowballs into the option of a lesser volume probably decreased wt pack that is COMFORTABLE TOO. H20 is another item hikers often carry too much of. H20 also takes up a lot of volume(it's concentrated wt!) and can imbalance loads. With hauling lesser water wt and volume one may likely be able to further consider reducing wt and the bells and whistles of a conventional pack. Cha ching cha ching. Add it up and the results, especially for those on fixed tight hiking budgets, and the consumables wt and volume savings can far surpass your pack and possibly any other single gear piece savings. What did it take? To know thyself as a backpacker. To be apprised of conditions. To develop our skill sets beyond just gear purchases and gear knowledge.

    It amazes me as a LD UL sometimes SUL hiker how often we neglect consumable knowledge as we get sidetracked with wt and volumes of gear. This is NOT UL philosophy... as practiced as a more complete approach! It is a skewed narrowed approach ignoring an important UL category that isn't given the attention it rightly deserves...consumables and H20 logistics.
    To go along with that SOMEHOW notbad (the guy who has done both of my WRR trips with me) just completed Skurka's Wind River High Route and managed to fit all his gear (including extra thermal layers) AND 10 days of food in an MLD Burn; that takes experience and some very talented packing.

  18. #18
    Registered User 1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-2004
    Location
    Chesapeake Va
    Age
    68
    Posts
    382
    Images
    1

    Default

    Like all have said it is whatever works for you. I have an ultralight pack but carry a 1lb 13oz sleeping pad. I will not leave home with out the comfy sleeping pad.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    07-21-2014
    Location
    Bar Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwood View Post
    If you want to lighten your load it's strongly suggested you look (more) intensely at your consumables category. CONSIDER: If out for a 5 day with most carrying about 2 lbs food/day that's 10 lbs in food alone. CONSIDER: Hauling just 1 extra L of H20 is an extra 2.2 lbs with some(many) unnecessarily carrying in excess of 1 L H20. Reduce that food to say 1.5 - 1.75 lbs/day in a personally intended situationally safe manner and it saves you 2.5 - 1.5 lbs in food...AND BULK that snowballs into the option of a lesser volume probably decreased wt pack that is COMFORTABLE TOO. H20 is another item hikers often carry too much of. H20 also takes up a lot of volume(it's concentrated wt!) and can imbalance loads. With hauling lesser water wt and volume one may likely be able to further consider reducing wt and the bells and whistles of a conventional pack. Cha ching cha ching. Add it up and the results, especially for those on fixed tight hiking budgets, and the consumables wt and volume savings can far surpass your pack and possibly any other single gear piece savings. What did it take? To know thyself as a backpacker. To be apprised of conditions. To develop our skill sets beyond just gear purchases and gear knowledge.

    It amazes me as a LD UL sometimes SUL hiker how often we neglect consumable knowledge as we get sidetracked with wt and volumes of gear. This is NOT UL philosophy... as practiced as a more complete approach! It is a skewed narrowed approach ignoring an important UL category that isn't given the attention it rightly deserves...consumables and H20 logistics.
    I highly agree with this. Knowing yourself as a hiker. Dialing in consumables to match your needs. Takes time and experience.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-01-2016
    Location
    Chattanooga, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwood View Post
    What did it take? To know thyself as a backpacker. To be apprised of conditions. To develop our skill sets beyond just gear purchases and gear knowledge.
    It also takes luck:

    - that it's not 88F and humid and you're ascending thousands of feet, sweating buckets
    - that water sources along the way are sufficient, not dried up (and that you can know this in advance ... not always easy on less popular trails that are new to you)
    - that water sources are suitable for filtering/treating (this is not always the case, e.g., on some sections of the Cumberland Trail that go through old mining areas)

    Your overall point is fine ... you don't necessarily have to start out carrying 2L. On a popular trail like the AT, you can probably get reliable knowledge about water sources, and then exploit that knowledge to reduce your water carry weight. But not all trails are like the AT.

    One thing that I should do more of is not merely filtering and filling water at good sources, but drinking substantially at such places before moving on. That could help me carry less. But then again, having a lighter pack isn't my primary objective. Having fun hiking is, and by striking a balance between a carrying enough water to provide a margin of safety and peace of mind with the concomitant pack weight that such water requires, I maximize my fun.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •