[pct-l] Cheryl Strayed's Pack in Wild

Fri Jul 25 13:30:30 CDT 2014

Ned, I want to thank you for your last two messages-- this one and the next one, about your perspective on how backpacking has changed over the last forty years. Experience like yours and that of others on the list is invaluable. 
I have been doing short hikes with a purposely heavier day pack (not filled with chains like Scott does, but still...!) I tend to carry all my tension in my neck and shoulders, so the internal framed packs I've used exacerbate that problem. My instinct has been to try to shift that weight to my hips, but with little success. It is nice to know that external framed packs work on that principle. My question about that is, is it possible to carry an "ultralight' kit in an external frame pack, then add extra weight as needed (extra food and water when supplies are scarce, mountain equipment in the Sierra, for example) ? How does a pack like that ride when a heavier load isn't necessary?
Carol

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:45 PM, ned at mountaineducation.org wrote:
> 
> One of the biggest things a person needs to accomplish before starting a thru hike is to decide, “What ‘works’ for me?”
> 
> In selecting gear to buy, you need to know what to ‘look for,’ but this knowledge comes by experiencing the gear in use. If you don’t have this, you don’t know what to look for. Criteria could be: comfort, durability, quality of construction and materials, roominess, weight, appropriateness for the season, availability of replacements, cost, waterproofness (or not), function, and so forth. It will boil down to what criteria matters to you. This is what we call, “Hike Your Own Hike (HYOH).”
> 
> “Back in the day,” 1950s and ‘60s, external frame packs were our only option since they were what was available post-war and designed (for hunting or military) to carry heavy loads by transferring packweight onto your pelvis, keeping as much of the weight off your shoulders as possible. Allowing the bigger muscle groups of the legs to do the work was easier to tolerate than involving all the smaller, thoracic, shoulder, and cervical muscle groups. Gear was heavy back then, thus packs were heavy and weight had to be carried on the pelvis for comfort.
> 
> As gear got lighter and smaller, post-lunar-landing, pack weights and volumes dropped and some bright soul in the manufacturing world thought the lighter, smaller packs could be carried up on the shoulders, more like a “day pack.” Why not? Who wants to carry a house around on their backs when they don’t have to anymore? When we had to, we accepted it, dealt with it, and didn’t think anything else of it. Now, with the choice of small and light vs. bigger and potentially heavier, it makes sense to go with the former rather than the latter. So, as one quick glance along the trail shows you today, this is the direction most people have chosen to go. 
> 
> Nevertheless, occasionally you will still see one or two individuals out on the trail still happily using an old external frame pack. (I say, “old” because they aren’t really made anymore, so you don’t have the freedom of choice to buy a new one). Why? As hunters and soldiers have long known, the heavier the pack, the more comfortable it will be to carry on the pelvis rather than on the shoulders. Simple experience out on the trail will make this pretty clear. So, for those who choose to bring along more or heavier stuff, the external frame handles the job comfortably (at least for those who decide it does for them). 
> 
> Now, just a little over-time perspective, it seems as though the external frame backpack is coming back! Although I’m only on-trail about 200 days every year teaching wilderness safety and skills through Mountain Education’s wilderness courses, I see more rigid frames (some hidden within internal frame-looking packs and some actually having true, external designs) going down the trail than I have in 30 years. About 1980 I began seeing Gregory internal frame packs out in the high country. The trend continued to where externals were unpopular, considered the wrong way to go, and you didn’t see them much anymore. People were carrying lighter and fewer items and didn’t want nor need the weight and bulk of the big frames. 
> 
> So, time goes by and like any good fad lasts as long as the public demands. Manufacturers went from “light” to “Ultralight” and prices went from high to ridiculous. So why are externals beginning to show up again? Sure, the fad is changing and manufacturers want to bring in new visuals, something new to buy, but I think there is more to it than that. 
> 
> Yes, it is good to travel as light as is safe. It is common practice to not carry what is perceived as an “unnecessary” item for a hike, based on the “average” trail conditions expected, with the hopes that the conditions actually encountered will, indeed, be “average.” Unfortunately, mountain conditions are far from average and change constantly. Those who chose to not carry something and suddenly wish they had may experience discomfort ranging from momentary to hazardous. Due to Risk Tolerance being an individual thing, some people don’t mind discomfort as long as it is momentary, but when it becomes protracted or unsafe, going without that particular item can prove to be a mistake. So, people, mainly the short hikers and “campers” of the trail are beginning to err on the side of safety and are carrying more than can comfortably fit into the smaller, lightweight internal frame packs. (It is worth noting that beginning day hikers and “campers” usually side with safety and comfort already, so their pack size needs are higher from the start). I believe the greater number of people at the entry-level of backpacking want their creature comforts on the trail while the expedition-level folks, like thru-hikers, are willing, based on their extensive experiences, to tolerate more discomfort and risk, do without the comfort stuff, and elect to travel lighter.
> 
> How does all this boil down? If, after you’ve done your over-night, weekend, and multi-week hikes, you come to decide for yourself that lighter and smaller is better for you, then par down and accept the discomforts and benefits that go with. HYOH! If you like your “creature comforts” and find you end up with a heavier pack because of it, then accept those discomforts. Lightweight and “heavyweight” hikers need to respect each other’s decisions while everyone enjoys the wilderness each backpacked to see. There’s nothing wrong with an external frame pack since it may be the most comfortable way for you to carry the weight of all the things you need to enjoy the life you want in the woods. There’s nothing wrong with the UL rig and gear if it allows you the life you want, too. 
> 
> Find out what kind of hiker you want to be by trying different styles, objectives, and gear. Get Experience! Embrace what “works” for you!
> 
> You can listen to what everybody else has to say, but in the end, why and how you’re out there is ultimately your very personal decision ....
> 
> 
> 
> Ned Tibbits, Director
> Mountain Education, Inc.
> www.mountaineducation.org 
> ned at mountaineducation.org 
> 
> 
> Mission:
> "To minimize wilderness accidents, injury, and illness in order to maximize wilderness enjoyment, safety, and personal growth, all through experiential education and risk awareness training."
> 
> From: Mary Kwart 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:48 PM
> To: Ned Tibbits 
> Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net 
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Cheryl Strayed's Pack in Wild
> 
> I wish I would have kept mine-- I often feel sad about giving my old Kelty Tioga to Goodwill in the late 80's. It was a tough pack and I could carry almost anything. 
> --Fireweed 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From:
>  "Ned Tibbits" <ned at mountaineducation.org>
> 
>  To:
>  "Mary Kwart" <mkwart at gci.net>, <sean.nordeen at gmail.com>, <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> 
>  Cc:
> 
>  Sent:
>  Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:35:54 -0700
> 
>  Subject:
>  Re: [pct-l] Cheryl Strayed's Pack in Wild
> 
> 
>  I have been using my Kelty Super Tioga every summer and winter since I 
>  bought it back in 1982. It is very comfortable, allows lots of air between 
>  my back and the pack bag, transfers almost all weight onto my hips, is well 
>  balanced and predictable, and carries the weight of a group trip nicely. 
>  Still going strong on every Mountain Education trip 32 years later...
> 
> 
> 
>  Ned Tibbits, Director
>  Mountain Education, Inc.
>  www.mountaineducation.org
>  ned at mountaineducation.org
> 
> 
>  Mission:
>  "To minimize wilderness accidents, injury, and illness in order to maximize 
>  wilderness enjoyment, safety, and personal growth, all through experiential 
>  education and risk awareness training."
>  -----Original Message----- 
>  From: Mary Kwart
>  Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:45 AM
>  To: sean.nordeen at gmail.com ; pct-l at backcountry.net
>  Subject: [pct-l] Cheryl Strayed's Pack in Wild
> 
>  The pack in the movie was made to look like the pack Cheryl Strayed
>  carried in the 90's. It is supposed to be a period piece about
>  backpacking--something like shooting a movie taking place in the
>  1950's--you wouldn't have people driving modern cars. Although this
>  fine point will probably be lost on the general non-hiking public.
> 
>  I don't know why the people at REI put Cheryl Strayed into an external
>  frame pack when she got outfitted before her hike in the 90's. I
>  switched to an internal frame pack from an external frame Kelty Tioga
>  in the mid 80's when Gregory came out with an internal frame pack.
> 
>  I have a pic of myself on the John Muir Trail in 1980--my external
>  frame pack had my home made frostline kit two person tent strapped on
>  top, with a day pack around it. The pack weighed 65 pounds. You could
>  carry more weight on top, which looks ridiculous now, because of the
>  stiffness of the frame. There are advantages to carrying an external
>  framepack--it carries loads better with less fussing about how you
>  pack than an internal frame pack. In 2011 I met a guy from Scotland on
>  the Colorado trail who was using a home made external frame pack that
>  he marketed over there--it was very lightweight. I am surprised
>  someone hasn't resurrected the idea of carrying a high tech external
>  frame pack on groomed trails like the PCT.
> 
>  --Fireweed
> 
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Pct-L mailing list
>  Pct-L at backcountry.net
>  To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
>  http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> 
>  List Archives:
>  http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>  All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
>  Reproduction is prohibited without express permission. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> 
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors. 
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.