|
There are clothes hangers designed for mummy bags, but most bags have loops on the bottom that make it easy to hang them on any kind of hook or reasonably straight clothes hanger. Ditto for packs. I imagine just a bunch of coat hooks and clothes hangers on a rack would be adequate for most or all your gear. I saw one guy who just installed some hooks directly into the ceiling in his basement for hanging sleeping bags. I dunno about tents or tarps...seems even the most kingly gear closet would have a hard time hanging one of those unfolded.
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
That's a 16L pack, which is too small for a backpacking pack, and even on the small end for a daypack. But there is a huuuuuge variety of daypacks in the ~15-25L range that are less than $100, sometimes substantially so. Even fancy ultra light ascent packs from gucci brands can be had for $100 in that volume range. If you plan to carry a rifle lashed to the back of the pack or just otherwise want to be able to attach various gear, you may want to look into hunting day packs that are expressly designed for this. A lot of climbing and hiking oriented packs will have either attachment systems designed specifically for just ice tools or trekking poles, or will have general purpose lashing systems that probably aren't suitable for carrying something as heavy as a rifle. These can also be had for < $100, and will generally be made out of materials designed to not get shredded when walking through thick brush or woods. A lot of them are on the tacticlol side of things aesthetically, though, and good luck finding one in anything but camouflage. An example of this kind of pack in the 20L range (and one that looks more like a traditional backpack) is the Badlands Pursuit daypack, which can be found for around $75-100 retail. Really though, for your purposes you can probably just sew some loops or rig some shock cord to carry what you need outside of any old reasonably sturdy $20 backpack.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
I love the prana zions. It's pretty easy to find them for around ~$50 if you are willing to wait a few weeks for a good deal to pop up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:What's the cut like? The photos on their website look super baggy. The prion pants look a bit more slim fit and use the same material. They have a pretty relaxed fit and are wide at the ankles compared to most other hiking pants. But outside of deep snow I actually prefer this since I don't need to make a pant-gaiter and the breathability is better this way. I've worn them with boots and crampons before and didn't have any issues snagging the pants on crampon points, so I don't think they can be described as that baggy, just definitely not a slim cut. The waist cinch thing actually loving works, too, unlike the one on the 3x more expensive patagonia simul pants... The stretch and flexibility of these pants are much better than other softshell pants that I've tried. If you prefer a slim fit, the brions are indeed basically the same thing as the zions but with a slimmer cut (I havent tried them though). The material is similar to most nylon soft shell pants...my first pair lasted about 2-3 years (with some minor stitching up here and there) before they finally started falling apart at the hem. Even then, if I had been a more diligent at repairing a small tear that occurred during a week long trip, they would probably still be in service. I don't hike through that much brush or vegetation, but a lot of scree, talus, and rock scrambling. The abrasion resistance is good. Overall I have found the durability of these pants to be the same as other (more expensive...) softshell pants of a similar weight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Anyone have any recommendations for a light, 100% polyester fleece or fleece-ish glove, with some kind of grip material/coating on the palm and fingers, but not a full leather/synthetic palm, with a thickness similar to 100wt polartec, i.e. maybe one-notch above light glove liners but not that much more?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
OSU_Matthew posted:Question about winter gloves... I'm looking for a good all-in-one compromise for backpacking. There is always going to be a compromise between dexterity and warmth. If dexerity is really important, a medium weight synthetically insulated glove is imo your best bet in terms of being at the limit of warmth where you can still do stuff with your fingers without wanting to just pull the gloves off. If temperatures are not too far below freezing, these are warm enough to use by themselves or over a thin liner. But in really cold temps you are always gonna want some kind of glove/heavy glove or glove/mitt system since there is simply no way to be both dexterous enough and warm enough at the same time. In those cases, a medium weight synthetic glove and a warm mitt that is easy to take on and off (and with a fixed or well fastened liner that doesnt come out when you pull the mitts off) are a good combo. Personally I don't like outer mitts with flaps or openings since these are always less warm and less weather sealed, and the only reason to have such a mitt in the first place is as the last lnie of defense against frozen fingers. BD Kingpin or Punisher (lol), Marmot Alpinist, Mountain Hardware Torsion, Outdoor Research Extravert, Patagonia White Smoke, or Montane Prism all occupy what I would consider to be the sweet spot for a cold weather glove where dexterity is important. I find that gloves much heavier than this, like the BD Guilde or Marmot Randonee, become sufficiently bulky and awkward that I end up taking them off whenever I need to do anything requiring fingers and thumbs, in which case they are no better than mitts. These gloves are warm enough to wear alone when active down to modestly subfreezing temperatures, and good enough in brutal cold to at least keep your fingers from freezing when you take mitts off for a few minutes to do dextrousy stuff. For backpacking specifically, I really like the Montane Prism. They aren't as tough as some of the models with leather palms, and they aren't super waterproof (no goretex liner, just pertex + DWR shell), but they are extremely dexterous and very warm for their weight. Also, in general, waterproof membranes in gloves don't really do their job well in my experience, but do make it much harder to dry gloves in your sleeping bag overnight. These are dexterous enough that I can tie/untie knots in guylines or laces, fiddle with carabiners, or even open the goddamn stupid loving battery door thingy on my camera without needing to take these gloves off.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
If you are just doing short hikes and hillwalking below the treeline, those kebs pants might be overkill...Also G-1000 fabric, while loving bombproof, is designed with their greenland wax treatment in mind. If you don't wax it, it's 35% cotton and will hold quite a bit more moisture and take longer to dry than regular synthetic softshell materials. If you do wax it, that + the already pretty dense weave will make it not that breathable compared to more conventional synthetic materials. It's a very tough fabric that has a good balance of wind/water resistance, and breathability, but if you aren't going to be bashing around on rocks all day up a mountain or doing serious bushwhacking there are lighter, more breathable, and cheaper options. For durability, though, the G-1000 stuff is hard to beat. If you are spending most of your time in relatively humid, wooded environments that aren't that cold, and want knee reinforcement just to keep dry and not because of high abrasion or bushwhacking through thorn fields, a relatively light nylon softshell type pant with some reinforced knees might serve you well. Marmot Pillar and Montane Terra are some examples. Any pair of pants that looks great on paper may fit you like poo poo, though. Honestly I'd just try to find a light softshell hiking pant for < $100 that fits you well and feels comfortable...if it has reinforced knees great, if not you can put cordura knee patches for like $6. Also, compared to the jeans you have been using, you might find that a reasonably water resistant softshell pant just doesn't absorb enough moisture for it to be an issue when kneeling down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
the yeti posted:I'm not sure what counts as proper high abrasion, I'm just trying to avoid dropping 100 bucks on pants that I shred on brambles or cut kneeling in the rocks or bracing flipped logs/shale/tin/etc against my legs... Honestly most softshell synthetic hiking pants should give you reasonably good durability. I think, realistically, if you are taking any pair of pants outdoors a lot, some little tears are gonna happen eventually, mostly from punctures rather than abasion. Probably the best way you can extend the life of your pants is by repairing these shortly after they happen so they don't grow into larger frays/holes over time. If you do that, even lighter hiking pants can last a few years. I get several seasons out of even my (not that durable) pranas and I abuse the hell out of them. The suggestion about hunting pants is a good one, if you want more options with cordura or similar reinforcement and heaver/tougher materials than what you''ll find in most hiking pants. Durability usually means a denser fabric, though, and with that comes warmer / less breathable, and often less stretchy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Interesting. It is duck down. I had the same issue with a duck down sleeping bag (my girlfriend said it smelled like "raccoon piss"), but never with goose down, so add one more piece of anecdotal data. The smell became much less with use. It was really only bad when it was new.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
All of my girlfriend's merino baselayers are second-hand, and so are mine since I saw the light. Second-hand is really the way to go with merino baselayers--you can find stuff in great condition super cheap cause nobody wants to "marinate in a stranger's pit sweat" so the resale value isn't great. I am happy to report that I've had no issues with stranger's pit sweat so far, though. And, frankly, even the swamp-assiest pair of merino boxers probably smells better than a brand new polyester t-shirt after 4 seconds of exercise. Congratulations on not paying 100 bucks for a t-shirt!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Honestly washing and leaving in the sun to dry should be fine. Dilute alcohol is probably OK for merino, better than bleach or most other options anyway... For second hand gear, apart from ebay, I've had a lot of luck on the gear trade / classifieds subforums on places like backpackinglight, summitpost, highsierratopix, or whatever relevant forums there are for your area. Geartrade.com is another option although I've personally had less success with that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Dukket posted:Are there snowshoe manufactures to stay away from? OR conversely, is there a short list of "only buy" They'll be used in the Great Lakes states, so flat to hilly. Probably just days hikes. If the various sizing charts are correct then I need 30's MSR is pretty much king poo poo of the snowshoe market. Tubbs and Atlas like Verman mentioned also have good models, as do Crescent Moon. In general, if traction is at all a concern I'd recommend against tubular construction as the traction is generally poor compared to flat stock frames. I have a pair of MSR Lightning Ascents which are very similar to the REvo Ascent that Verman mentioned. If these are overkill (no need for aggressive traction on steep terrain), the MSR Trail models might be more suitable, as well as lighter and cheaper. That being said, I'm not really familiar with the snow conditions or dynamics in your region. If it's mostly deep, very unconsolidated dry powder you are dealing with, where extreme amounts of flotation are needed, the offerings from MSR may not be the best. The default and most common length for most MSR models is 22-25", and they tend to have a narrower profile which is great for ergonomics and agility, but not the best for super high flotation due to their lower surface area for a given length. MSR does offer lengths up to 30" on some models, with convenient tail extensions for added flotation, but sometimes the tail extensions don't work as well as just a longer and wider snowshoe would (e.g. front sinks while tail floats). On the other hand, for icier, harder snow the generally excellent traction of all MSR models would be nice. Or if you plan to travel in densely wooded or vegetated areas with lots of trees and stalks and branches and poo poo poking out of the snow, then a lower surface area, narrower snowshoe with a more natural stride may also be a priority. Same goes for traversing even moderately sloped hills, where a wide snowshoe can be very awkward. In general, most of the halfway popular manufacturers will make a decent snowshoe. The best model for you will depend mainly on how much flotation you need, whether you will be staying on relatively packed trails or going off-trail, how steep and how hard/icy the snow will be, and whether it's in a wide open space or in a more crowded/buchwhacky environment. MSR is probably the go-to brand for the best overall compromise between these factors, as well as having top-tier models for traction, while other manufacturers that made models with larger overall working areas (Crescent Moon comes to mind) may be better optimized for flotation. Of course, if you intend to travel on snow where the flotation from a longer MSR snowshoe would be insufficient, skis are almost certainly a better option (unless you are like me and cant ski for poo poo). All that being said, I have never found inadequate flotation on my 25" MSRs to be an issue, even if they do sometimes sink more than would be ideal. As a final consideration, if you plan on going over somewhat steep hills in hard or icy snow, traction is a safety factor, whereas adequate flotation in powder is (for the most part) a convenience factor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
Dukket posted:Thank you for the responses. This article seems to discuss the differences in snow between west and mid west. He seems to use Northern Lites Backcountry model. My experience so far has been on fairly fresh and still falling fluffy snow (probably a total of 6 to 8 inches) on wooded trails and some steep dunes. If the snow is not deep, and the slopes are not too steep, your best bet might be to not worry about flotation or traction too much and just optimize around weight, stride ergonomics, and the binding system that is most comfortable for you (both in terms of how it fits your boot and how much rotation, if any, it allows). Personally, I've been really intrigued by those new fangled EVA foam snowshoes, and If I wanted something comfortable and fun to use in easier terrain without super deep snow, I'd look seriously at them. They look pretty fun, and I even saw one person a couple weeks ago running in them up a trail. Can't do that in my MSRs lol. I guess they would wear out quick if snow cover is patchy or there are rocks or other pokeys sticking out, though. Long term durability may be an issue, but then again they are also half the price of a pair of Northern Lights or Ascents.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
Lowa says if your boots are resolable they will resole them at cost. The most I've ever heard of a boot manufacturer charging for a resole was some guy who paid Scarpa $90 to change the soles on his foo-foo $800 ice climbing boots to the sole from a different model. No way it costs 150 euro just to resole your boots. It's up to you to evaluate whether or not its worth even $40-50 to resole them. Some people are wearing boots that are 20+ years old that have been resoled 2-3 times. In other cases, by the time the sole wears out the uppers are close to wearing out too, in wihch case it's probably more cost effective in the long run to get new boots. Was the 150 quote you got just for a resole, or was it that much because there are other parts of the boot falling apart as well?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
I've heard tell of people using yoga ball pumps like this: http://a.co/g1KzGh2 125g not too bad. No idea how well this works or if it will actually get you greater or more reliable inflation than an inflation bag. Also I guess you might have to do some tweaking to get it to fit the valve on your packraft well. If that's too sketch for you there are a whole bunch of double action hand pumps in the 1-2lbs range, like this: https://tinyurl.com/y9g4wlne I have no idea if this will work or not (I imagine if a stuff sack is OK to use these should be too..), but you may also try the "pumps" they make to inflate backpacking sleeping pads like the Therm-a-Rest NeoAir mini pump or torrent pump, which are dinky electric pumps that run off batteries and weigh around 3 and 9 oz, respectively. Might take awhile for something like that to inflate a packraft, though, and again you'd probably have to do some tinkering to get everything to mate together well. Even something like a Coleman QuickPump only weighs around 1 lb, which might be another electric option.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
Hahahahah I wonder if that PFD made out of dollar store box wine is Coast Guard approved
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
To be fair, reading his blog he did identify the potential safety issues of his spray skirt deathtrap and did both some capsize trials and subsequent modifications to make it easier to escape. His first trial went about as well as n8r predicted: https://youtu.be/cJs23rB5ts4 I think this guy is totally bonkers but man what a cool trip. Dat babby seal: https://www.omick.net/adventure/yakutat_lituya_2015/day_5/day_5.html
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Just lol if you dont use diborane fuel for the ultimate in ignition reliability.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
One time I lost my lighter, so from then on I always brought two. Then one time I lost two lighters, so now I always bring three. So far, this has been sufficient...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
There is a 100% chance that if I put a lighter in my first aid kit I will just lose my first aid kit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
I think piezos just fail at high elevation for the same reason that most stove/ignition problems happen at high elevations: cold air and cold fuel. Sparks are actually easier to strike for a given voltage as you reduce air pressure, until you get into vacuum pressures. Actually, some piston engine aircraft can have problems with arcing in the ignition system at high elevations for this reason. The piezolectric properties of the commonly used PZT material do decrease linearly with temperature, but at even -40 degrees it should only be a 20% or so reduction. That might be enough to turn an already marginal ignition source into a dud, though. The bottom line is that the energy in the tiny spark from a piezo igniter is much less than the energy in the flame from a lighter or match, or from burning magnesium / ferrocerium. So in challenging ignition conditions, piezos may have problems just by virtue of being a relatively weak, low volume ignition source. If you only ignite a very small volume of fuel/air, it's easier for it to become quenched before starting a chain reaction. So in colder conditions, a larger minimum ignition energy is required, and piezos clearly have the lowest ignition energy of any commonly used source. It makes sense that they will crap out first. Probably if they just put a heavier spring & striker with more mechanical energy you could get sparks large enough to reliably ignite fuel in extreme conditions, but at a cost of weight and/or bulk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Are there any downsides to getting a larger pack? I was looking at a Gregory Baltoro 65l but saw the 75l on clearance for half the price. I’m starting to get into backpacking again so this will be my first pack but eventually I will be planning on doing some week+ long trips in couple years. Difference in weight is only a few ounces. Larger packs may be awkward if filled to substantially less than their capacity. Especially if you use external/auxiliary storage like mesh pockets or lids on an underfillled pack. It can also be hard to distribute weight throughout the pack the way you want it, or keep frequently used items near the top of the pack, if everything is just constantly shifting around and sinking to the bottom in an oversized pack. Some packs are more versatile than others in this regard. Compression straps, extension collars, can help make a larger pack comfortable over a wider range of used volume, but only to an extent. Some models are specifically designed to be convertible between a range of volumes. In my experience, narrower and taller packs tend to be more versatile than wider and shorter packs in this regard, but can also be more unwieldy when filled to their capacity... A smaller, narrower profile pack that hugs close to the body is often preferable and more balanced if you need to do any scrambling, or even for just walking on rougher terrain like steep scree or wobbly talus fields. Larger packs can also be problematic in "close quarters" situations like slots, narrow ledges, or dense brush, either because the sides are too wide or because when you need to turn and sidestep the pack sticks too far out from your back. People have done week+ long trips with 40L packs, and ~50-65 is very common. I do winter overnight and 2 night trips with mountaineering gear in a ~35L pack. More than anything else, the volume you require depends on the stuff you will be bringing. Some shelters pack down way smaller than others, fleece insulation is more bulky than down or synthetic, you may or may not need a bear canister, and you may or may not want to subsist on the kind of food that can be crammed into one of the smaller models for a week long trip. Have you tried packing everything into the 65L to see how it fits? Do you plan on doing any backpacking trips in winter conditions?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 11:06
|
|
|
Like everyone says, if you are just starting out transitioning from car camping to backpacking, your gear will likely shrink over time and you'll find yourself wanting less volume as you progress, not more. ~60L is probably a sweet spot for a starter pack with plenty of room for your gear and a reasonably sized bear canister, that still wont be cavernous as you move on to lower volume and less stuff. But if you can fit your current or forseeable equipment into a smaller volume (45-55L), *and* if your total packweight is under 30 lbs, you can consider getting one of the lightweight lower volume packs (like the arc blast) right off the bat. If your current packweight would be over 30 lbs or unable to fit in a 50L pack, that may be a sign that something else that can or should be upgraded from the get go. Something else to consider about pack volume which may or may not be an issue for you, is whether or not you want to be able to take it as carry-on luggage. I think the Osprey Exos 48 is a pretty good starter pack on the lower volume / lighter end, if you decide to go that way. They are under 2.5 lbs, can be had for ~130 bucks, and can handle not-quite-lightweight loads reasonably well. With any pack, though, how well it fits you is the most important thing, and many packs simply wont fit you perfectly. Overall, I'd say start with a cheaper, reasonably versatile pack that fits you really really well, and once you've taken a few trips and honed the rest of your equipment you'll have a much better idea of what can be improved, if anything. When trying on packs, I'd recommend loading them up both with a "representative" load, but also a heavy load of like 50 lbs. You will (hopefully) never be carrying close to that amount, but there are lots of little problems with pack fit that may not manifest themselves for hours when carrying a 20 lbs load, that become immediately apparent with a 50 lb load. This especially goes for problems with the hip belt or shoulder straps. Morbus fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
yaffle posted:I seem to be the wrong shape and temperature for sleeping bags. I have very wide shoulders, so I often feel cramped, also I’m claustrophobic, so that doesn’t help. My feet are always hot and my shoulders are cold, what are the alternatives? Manufacturers specify the circumference of the sleeping bag at shoulders / hip / toebox and sometimes hood. There is quite a lot of variation so I think the first step is to make sure you've tried bags on the wider end of the shoulder girth spectrum. I think the widest I've seen from retail manufacturers are around 64-66", so if a bag specced around there is still too narrow then more drastic measures might be required. But many or most bags have shoulder girth <= 60" so you may have just not tried a wide enough bag yet. I know enlightened equipment lets you customize your bag or quilt dimensions, with shoulder girth up to 68". Other cottage industry companies may also let you customize fit. For common brands, I think Marmot tends to run somewhat on the wider side. Having a bag with a wider hip and shoulder circumference can also make rolling around inside the bag easier, which may help if you feel claustrophobic in mummy bags; although in general, a snug bag will have higher thermal efficiency. The widest shoulder widths are often only available on the taller models, so if you are shorter but with really wide shoulders this can be an issue. But a tall bag probably won't be a huge issue since your feet aren't getting cold and anyway you can always stuff a jacket down there or something. I prefer quilts except for winter conditions, but be careful about shoulder width there too. Switching from a bag to a quilt can superficially solve fit problems for people with wide shoulders, but if the width is too narrow you'll have a hard time properly tucking the sides of the quilt down which will make drafts a bigger problem which will make your cold shoulder problem much worse. So be sure to size a quilt so its wide enough to both cover your shoulders, and drape comfortably around your sleeping pad. Quilts are also good if your feet are too hot while the rest of you isn't, since its easy to just stick a foot out. If you are getting cold shoulders after finding a properly fitting bag or quilt the standard cold sleeping checklist applies: 1. Are you protected from drafts? If not tweak your quilt tucking or bag/hood cinching and shelter system to try and fix this, and consider if a liner or light bivy make sense for you. 2. Is your sleeping pad warm enough? If it isn't, it is very hard to modify any other part of your sleep system to fix this. A warmer pad is often the most efficient way to fix cold sleeping issues. 3. If you are still cold after addressing 1 and 2 you may just need more insuation in your bag, or need to wear more insulation while sleeping.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
The black diamond icon and newer version of the storm have pretty robust waterproofing (fully sealed, 1 meter immersion rated). The older version of the storm did not, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
It's supposed to be safe to cats after it dries, and it deffo doesn't stop them from lying on clothes if my pants are any indication.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Permethrin works for mosquitoes, or really almost any insect. It's a straight up neurotoxin rather than an irritant like DEET or picardin, so it won't necessarily have a repellent effect but will prevent biting by making insects spaz out and die on contact. Its main advantages, aside from its lethality, are that it's easy to apply all over clothing or gear in a persistent way that has no odor or residue. Treating clothing or other gear in this way with DEET or picardin is much less practical, and requires frequent re-application due to the volatility of those chemicals. Permethrin and DEET/picardin complement each other, so both are usually used as part of the best anti-insect strategies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
I'm not Canadian but I've heard you can order it from amazon without problems (although higher shipping costs / import taxes might apply). Just be careful if you buy concentrate and dilute it vs. just getting 0.5% solution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Loads of people use pads instead of underquilts. They tend to be slightly lighter, can be significantly cheaper, and you have some bonus versatility in case you need to camp on the ground for some reason. But you will probably want a wide pad rather than the skinny/mummy type, otherwise your shoulders might get cold.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
In the same sense that vaccines are associated with autism, yes. Edit: if you're really worried about it the best advice, based on present medical understanding, is to 1.) do not be a rabbit and 2.) do not inject aluminum directly into your brain. Morbus fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
I use Avenza just because it's the easiest way I know to import maps directly from CalTopo into the phone. With CalTopo it's easy to make exactly the map I want for any trip, at least in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
talktapes posted:So I'm a flat footed zilch and I've been hiking using Keen Voyageurs for a few years. On regular dayhikes they're fine, but on any 15+ mile trip (or with an overnight pack), the actual soles of my feet (not the heel, the entire bottom of the foot) are screaming by the end. Your feet are always going to get sore eventually. If you hike longer than you normally do, it's more likely to happen. For me, personally, in terms of how many miles I can go before getting sore feet / likelihood of getting sore feet: lightweight very flexible shoes > flexible hiking boots >> any mountaineering boot So I'd say that a beefier shank / stiffer sole--while useful in other ways for some applications--isn't the ticket to more comfortable feet, and I think most people agree. In general I've had the fewest incidents of sore feet and the longest endurance before getting sore feet with lightweight trail runner type shoes, or lightweight (but still comfortable for hiking) approach shoes. Right now I'm using la sportiva TX3s whenever I can get away with it and they've been great. Feet are black magic though, and the only surefire way to find out of other shoes work better for you is to try them. If you're having issues with your current shoes, I think your best bet is to just try some other ones and see how it goes...Unfortunately I've found that the boot/shoe that fits best walking around while trying them on is often not the best when it comes to actually hiking for long miles. Other than that, I've found that if I don't routinely stress my feet by hiking X miles, hikes equal or greater than X miles are gonna give me sore feet at some point. If I do routinely hike X miles, my feet will probably be OK unless I do more than X miles in a day. Usually, if I've gone several weeks or months without a big mileage day and dive right back into it (even if I've had a lot of shorter hikes in between) sore feet are guaranteed. But "just do painful thing more until it stops hurting" is not generally regarded as medical best practice so take that with a grain of salt. 15-20 miles is a solid half-to-full day dayhike on reasonable terrain, so you might just try banging one of those out once a week and see if things improve, and stop if things seem to be getting worse?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Posting in here reminds me I actually have a boot question: So, the main thing that keeps your foot from sliding forward is how securely the boot fits around your instep. Reducing the internal volume of the boot, either with a thicker insole or (better) something that reduces volume above your instep like Internet Wizard suggests can help to an extent. Some boots even come with special tongue inserts for this purpose, that have velcro to stick to the inside of the boot to keep them from sliding around. The ones for La Sportiva Nepals are pretty commonly used in different boots. Reducing volume from above the instep is preferable to doing it below your heel since 1.) that's where the real problem is and 2.) insoles that are too high/thick can interfere with the heel cup functioning as well as it should, making things worse (also they may cause the back of your heel and ankles to rub places they shouldn't, causing blisters). As for the problems you are having sidehilling, at some point this is mostly a function of the stiffness of the sole. A stiffer sole will allow the boot to remain more level while only one side is engaged with the slope and still support you, whereas a more flexible sole will force your foot to rotate and match the angle of the slope. A taller or stiffer ankle, stiffer boot construction in general, and more secure fitting instep that forces your foot to sit securely in the heel cup can also help (so the general problems you are having with boot volume aren't doing you any favors here either), but sole stiffness is probably the most important factor. That being said, like I mentioned a few posts ago stiffer soles are generally less comfortable especially when walking on less steep terrain and trails. Stiffer boots are also usually heavier and warmer, and many of them are geared towards mountaineering which would be overkill in terms of stiffness and also $$$. Often, the best approach is to just keep using flexible soled footwear and adapt your technique e.g. by turning into the slope. Depending on the terrain, sometimes a modestly stiff hiking boot is the best compromise. There are hiking boots marketed as "scrambling boots" or "alpine boots" or "approach boots" that are still a notch or two below a full on summer mountaineering boot and comfortable for hiking, but that are a bit more stiff than most hiking boots to have decent edging performance. Boots with a U.K rating of B1 are probably your best bet here. My girlfriend recently got a pair of Salomon X Alp GTX boots and these are a good example. They feel like a hiking boot, not a mountaineering boot (they are way less stiff than my Trangos, which are a more flexible mountaineering boot), and she doesn't hesitate to wear them for long approaches or hikes on easy trails, but the sole is decently stiff and she has used them for hiking in steep off trail terrain, scrambling, and moderately steep snow. Morbus fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jul 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
n8r posted:Tell me more about this please. If you're already familiar with CalTopo, if you print to PDF, you can load that file directly into Avenza (either by opening the file or using the phone camera to scan the QR code on the map), and bam, you've got whatever map you made in caltopo directly on your phone. Avenza is fairly spartan feature-wise, but it will show your position on the map, allow you to take bearings and measure distances, save and load waypoints--all the important basics. If you aren't familiar with CalTopo, it's a free* website that has all the USGS and other publicly available topo map data for the entire US and I think Canada too. It's easy to make seamless topo maps covering arbitrary areas. There are also lots of features, ranging from things to basic drawings and annotations, to weather visualizations, slope angle shading, custom relief or elevation shading, the ability to superimpose satelite images, basically anything you could imagine. *the basic service is free but there are paid options for $20 and $50/year that basically let you make very high resolution maps and some other features. There's an offline version for $100/year
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
anatomi posted:We had to set camp on some pretty hard and rocky ground recently and my body was aching the whole day after. I'm getting older and my tolerance for discomfort is getting lower... Is this for backpacking or just camping (i.e. how important is the weight of the pad)? Also what are you using currently, to help set a baseline? In general, your best bet is to get a high thickness air mattress, optionally backed by a foam pad. Most manufactuers (I'm most famliar with Thermarest and Exped_ will have both backpacking oriented but still thick air matresses (Exped Synmat Downmat comes to mind), and also heavier "comfort" oriented pads that don't have quite as good a thickness/weight ratio but are up to 5" thick. If minimizing packweight is important, something like a Neoair Xtherm + Zlite foam pad is about as lofty as you can get while maintaining system weight of ~2 lbs. In the 2-4 lbs range, there are a lot of options like the Downmat + foam pad, or comfort oriented pads like the Thermarest LuxyryMap or Exped Megamat (although a lot of the comfort oriented pads have a much higher packed volume). Obviously if you want super high loft *and* minimal weight *and* low packed volume you gonna $$$
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Dukket posted:Does anyone have an opinion on the Granite Gear Crown/2 series vs Gregory Optic series? Pack fit varies widely from person to person and is probably both the most important and most neglected factor when deciding on a pack, so it's probably best to try as many as possible within your specifications. That said, pack fit becomes a lot more forgiving if your total pack weight is very low. On that note, the two models you mention span ~2.0-2.5 lbs and cost ~200 bucks, and there are a *lot* of packs in that range of weight and price, including some that are both lighter and cheaper if those are the two metrics that matter most to you. For example the ULA equipment CDT is only 1 lb 8 oz and costs ~150 bucks or less, but its completely frameless and would not work well for loads much above 15 lbs... Apart from how well the pack fits, there are a lot of considerations like how long of a trip do you need to support (i.e. do you need to fit a giant bear can), are you doing mostly on trail hiking or also other things, how important or unimportant are external attachment features and what kind, how much stuff you will be carrying both in terms of weight and volume...Things like this may rule out certain packs or make others better or worse options. Anyway the Crown2 certainly seems popular, and my girlfriend is very happy with a much much older version of a similar pack for what that's worth. Gergory packs have never fit me worth a poo poo so I can't really comment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Ah, for an 8 night trip and up to 30 lbs weight you probably want to avoid any of the totally frameless designs like the ULA CDT I mentioned, unless you plan on improvising your own framesheet. Even packs like the crown 2, which have a plastic framesheet but not a carbon or aluminum frame, *may* become less than ideal around 30 lbs. That being said, fit really is the most important thing when it comes to carrying comfort...I have a pack that is basically a ripstop nylon trashcan with only a thin plastic framesheet, a strip of webbing for a hip belt and barely padded shoulder straps, and that pack carries a 40 lbs load more comfortably than my aluminum framed Exos 58 simply because the fit of the hip belt, shoulder straps, and pack against my back are all better. If possible, buying a few packs from somewhere with a decent return policy, trying them, and returning the ones you don't keep is a good option. If you're in the middle of the torso length sizing, best bet is just try both. Some people say if you're in the middle it's better to go with the smaller, some people say go bigger...nobody knows and it all depends. And anyway there are lots of ways a pack can fit poorly even if the torso length is correct. For a pack with a framesheet similar to the the Crown2, the Gossamer Gear Mariposa is another popular option that weighs 2 lbs for 60L and is ~225$ now. For packs that weigh around 2lbs, with a frame, apart from the Gregory Optic (which you mentioned) and the Osprey Exos (which apparently may not fit you well), the ULA Ohm2 and Circuit are other similar options. Again, I'm not really sold on frames being necessarily better than simple framesheets for carrying loads in the 30 lbs range, but the general wisdom (at least among backpackers...) is that the rigid framed packs are a bit better once you go above 25-30 lbs or so. One last thing to consider is volume. Depending on your other gear, ~40L might be pushing it if you ever need to carry a large bear canister inside the pack, though it should be OK if you pack carefully and have low volume gear. For much above $200, you are generally paying for relatively modest (~10 oz) weight reductions, which IMO don't matter if you're hauling around 20-30 lbs. But for your shorter trips it might be nice, I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Lmao i didn't realize the Mariposa was like 40 bucks extra for the luxury of a hipbelt. Takes some balls to charge as much as a daypack for what amounts to some webbing with padding and a pouch. I'd say try out the Exos, Optic, Crown 2 and Ohm 2.0 if you can and just go with whatever fits best. And yeah it's definitely not just UL backpackers who use packs with framesheets. A lot of mountaineering packs forgo rigid frames for foam or plastic framesheets, and no matter how light the rest of your gear is adding in ice tools, crampons, climbing gear, a shovel, avalanche equipment, winter shelter & clothing and perhaps snowshoes/skis means those loads are necessarily much heavier than the "ultralight" cutoff where rigid frames are conventionally considered optimal. Those packs remove rigid frames mainly as a compromise between load carrying ability vs. not restricting movement, not because such a design is better for carrying heavier loads...but if people are carrying 60 lbs of poo poo up Denali with only folded foam bivy pads as "framesheets" it's hard to ague that you are going to injure yourself and be miserable backpacking with a 25lb load if you don't have the latest and greatest space age frame and ~*~active suspension~*~.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
Dukket posted:What do folks here do about their legs while backing packing in the rain in mid to low 60's. I run very hot so I'm really hesitant to wear rain pants. I thought about getting a rain kilt or ditching my rain jacket and getting a poncho. If getting cold isn't a problem (e.g. from wet + wind), and I don't have to worry about stuff freezing overnight (rare if daytime temps are that high), I just have wet pants. If I really don't want to get my pants wet for some reason, and it's too warm to put rainpants over them, Ill just take off the hiking pants, wear only rainpants, and use the side zips to vent/cool off if I need to. If you do get rainpants, I highly recommend half or at least quarter length side zips, even if it costs some ounces. If you ever plan to use them with boots, full zips might be worthwhile Plenty of people like ponchos or other alternative rain gear. Ponchos seem like they would be great in some conditions, but I can't see them doing well in high winds or dense vegetation. Rain kilts....on the one hand, are easy to put on and off irrespective of footwear and have great ventilation, but on the other hand, your pants are still gonna get like, half wet. If half wet pants are good enough, and it's not cold, do you really need to mess around with another piece of gear instead of just having full wet pants? Besides, rainjackets, especially as they are usually sized a bit large, will often cover your butt/crotch anyway. Lotta people use them and like them, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:whats a good gps? I have zero interest in paying extra for a digital map, all I want is an accurate UTM readout Most people just use phones these days. Every map software I've used can show coordinates in lat/long or UTM/MRGS, but there's gotta be a free app that will do the same if that's all you need.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 08:20
|
|