BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Post by BlueBear on Jul 17, 2015 8:20:14 GMT -8
Cool! While I certainly can't take credit for any of the knowledge you say you've gleaned from here, it makes me smile to read the thread. Yet another reason why I'm very glad the community here seems to have survived.
|
|
|
Post by cahiker on Jul 17, 2015 13:12:26 GMT -8
Great post. We've gone through a similar process and find that we now hike faster and farther and see more. The online community has been a big help for learning the existence of and the pros and cons of all sorts of gear, and getting us to think about what we really need to bring (less changes of clothes, etc.)
|
|
rebeccad
Trail Wise!
Writing like a maniac
Posts: 12,666
|
Post by rebeccad on Jul 23, 2015 21:40:56 GMT -8
I'm another who learned here how to lighten our packs. We (husband, eldest son, and me) recently did a 4 night/5 day trip in the Sierra with packs--fully loaded including food, water and camera gear--at 35, 30, and 27 lbs. I didn't sort out what the base weight was, but I'm pretty sure we are all under 20 lbs. Well, except maybe the spouse's camera gear... and even that is much lighter than it used to be in the days of the non-digital SLR and 3 lenses!
This has allowed us, not so much to add speed and mileage, but to keep doing the same speed and mileage as age has taken its toll.
BTW, the big ones for us were a WAY lighter tent, sleeping pads, and cooking system.
|
|
rebeccad
Trail Wise!
Writing like a maniac
Posts: 12,666
|
Post by rebeccad on Jul 26, 2015 8:34:00 GMT -8
Yes! Actually, the pack was one of my first reductions, as when I went back to the regular pack after 3 or 4 years of carrying the baby pack, my 7-lb+ Dana Alpine just didn't fit right anymore . I ended up with a 60-liter Osprey Ariel, at just over 3 lbs (the old one, before they put all the features back in and made it weigh over 4). That reduced pack size helped drive the quest for smaller and lighter gear.
|
|