Hyperlight's math
http://www.hyperlitemountaingear.com...alachian-trail
I like the math here. Spend 2000 on our gear. And it will pay for itself.
Anyone else think this is really ridiculous?
LOL I think it is an ingenious marketing tool! I would have even thrown in the cost of occasional hotel rooms.There is a certain truth in what they are stating.
However, I may hang my food with cuben fiber or protect my sleeping bag and clothes with it, but the day will never come when I hike with what looks like a few rolls of Saran Wrap on my back!
I think there is merit to the argument. Less weight, less strain, more miles, less time off from work.
With that being said, hike your own hike, and some people hike less a day simply because they expect/want to hike for 6 months. All depends on the person.
The one who follows the crowd, will usually get no further than the crowd. The one who walks alone, is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been.
-Albert Einstein
They are making a big assumption stating that a person can or will hike an extra 10 miles a day because of lighter equipment.
They need to add the standard disclaimer "Your Milage May Vary"
"Chainsaw" GA-ME 2011
[QUOTE=peteyglad;1291342]They are making a big assumption stating that a person can or will hike an extra 10 miles a day because of lighter equipment.[QUOTE]
I do think lighter = farther on a given day, but...
There was a time when may hikers carried enought food to stay in the woods 7 to 10 days at a stretch. Far fewer town stops with thier unavoidable money suck. That meant up to 15 - 20+ pounds in supplies alone, so by definition it wasn't ultra light.
I think people doing that hiked the trail much more quickly-- on average - than those who are now compelled to vis towns much more frequently. And make no mistake about it, an ultralike hiker is COMPELLEDto visit towns frequently.
When comfort is king and when an extra day's worh of food is s evil as an anvil in your pack, costs tend to go up.
Agreed... I do think keeping you out of town would save you money, but willpower helps there. You could go into town for food resupply, a shower, laundry and leave, or you could hang out at bars, get a hotel room, eat out, etc etc. How much you spend in town is still up to you, not your gear.Originally Posted by WIAPilot
LOL I think it is an ingenious marketing tool! I would have even thrown in the cost of occasional hotel rooms.
However, I may hang my food with cuben fiber or protect my sleeping bag and clothes with it, but the day will never come when I hike with what looks like a few rolls of Saran Wrap on my back!
And I thought the AT was about the AT, not about a race to finish so you can get back to the real world. I would rather take several yearly leisurely section hikes, than rush through it at top speed/miles just so I can hurry back.
Please don't read my blog at theosus1.Wordpress.com
"I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. Thank God for Search and Rescue" - Robert Frost (first edit).
My experience has been that beginning at about 500 or so miles for a northbound AT thru-hiker, the importance of backpack weight begins to diminish because you're starting to get your trail legs. That, in addition to the terrain becoming less rugged for a northbounder at that point, leads to having the ability for most thru-hikers to start doing consecutive 20 miles days through Virginia.
Even though a lighter backpack would account for some additional miles per day in the beginning of a northbound AT thru-hike, I don't believe you could apply that proportional relative savings in time and cost across the entire length of the Trail.
I found the same to be true on the PCT also -- the further north, the less backpack weight became a concern.
Datto
Using Hyperlite's logic (less time on the trail=savings), if I don't hike at all, I save a fortune.
"It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss
I haven't looked at the link but going from 25-30 lbs to 15ish lbs gave me an extra 5 mpd. My first long hike at 15 lbs was a BMT thru and I averaged about 27 mpd.
I talk about the extra miles by going lighter in my trip report I wrote a year ago on postholer.com.
Hey, you are preaching to the choir. I will be on the trail almost 7 months while I explore everything. And initially? I chose so many hotels that they exceeded days in the wild - so even I had to be embarrassed about that. So now I'm reducing my hotels to no more than 1/3 of the trip. It isn't the tent and sleeping and cooking outdoors; it's the showers and clean hair; clean clothes; that will be hard for me. And I haven't hung out in bars since college, but well..depending on how many leeches, bears, and ticks I see on the trail - that may change too!
Expand the math equation even more and you've created a time machine!
Or is it traversable worm holes?
"Fish Camp Woman.... Baby, I like the way you smell"
- Unknown Hinson
Don't I need a DeLorean for that?
"It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss
heheheheheee........
"Fish Camp Woman.... Baby, I like the way you smell"
- Unknown Hinson
Is it too late to copyright the phrase "Slow and Light"?
Nope,just a snorkle and mask,and maybe fins too.
[QUOTE=rickb;1291348]Rick, this can be parsed a few ways.
I disagree with the blanket statement "Ultralite hiker is compelled to visit towns frequently." That's not my experience at all if you mean that non-UL hikers somehow pass up towns because they have so much food they don't need to stop.
What I see is that the majority of AT hikers tend to go into more or less the same towns all the way up the trail - there are some variations but generally speaking not too many hikers blow by towns on the way.
The reason I go into towns more frequently than my more heavily laden peers is simply because I get to the towns quicker.
For instance, if a town is 35 miles up the trail and I'm hiking 25 mpd I'm in that town early on the second day. If I'm hiking 15 mpd I'm there early on the 3rd day.
So yeah, I go into towns more frequently but only because it doesn't take me as long to get there.
Oops sorry bout that just realized this was the straight forwaed thread.My bad!
It depends on what your objectives are. A 1 pound weight reduction definitely has value, and should reduce travel time by about 0.5 days, but not sure how to evaluate that.
Lighter is just tons better for me from several perspectives:
Less body pain due to less weight on my back
Easier to take pack off and put it back on
Less gear, more about hiking, less about gear/camping
More miles - some improvement, to me losing more belly weight will make more impact than a few less pounds on my back
In the dead of winter I have been as high as 52 lbs for 7 days, no resupply............as low as about 30lbs - all in weights with water, booze and food.
I can do plenty of curls with 25lb hand weights, picking up and carrying a 30lb pack is comfy for me...........I do not ever see carrying a heavy pack again unless weather or distance between resupplies dictate this, or needing to carry a lot of water in the desert.
Be it cool new companies like Hyperlite Mountain Gear or others, lighter is the trend, new gear costs $$$. This is my hobby, I save up for things that I need and want, overall this hobby is a LOT less expensive than many/most others.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote