It's not about the Bit Three | High Sierra Topix  

It's not about the Bit Three

If you've been searching for the best source of information and stimulating discussion related to Spring/Summer/Fall backpacking, hiking and camping in the Sierra Nevada...look no further!
User avatar

It's not about the Bit Three

Postby balzaccom » Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:59 am

from our blog:

Every backpacking book or website will tell you that it's all about the big three: tent, pack and sleeping bag. Get the very best of those, and the rest of your backpacking will be a breeze.

Well, we disagree. It's not about the big three. It's really about getting outdoors and on the trail. And if you are going to obsess about your equipment instead of hiking, you really are missing the point.

Sure, the big three are the main ingredients to your home on the trail. And sure, it would be wonderful to have the very best, lightest and latest version of each item. But it isn't a requirement. In fact, it doesn't really make a big difference.

Examples? OK. Some of our early equipment would never meet the standards of today's equipment geeks (even though it served us through some of the greatest trips we have ever taken!) A couple of full sized sleeping bags that weighed five pounds and didn't compress much smaller than an ice chest cost us about $40 each. A three-man Eureka tent that we originally bought for car camping and weighs nearly eight pounds and costs us another $150. And a pair of Eureka backpacks that we picked up at a box store for under $50 apiece.

Our total pack weights just for the big three were something like 17 pounds for P, and another 9 pounds for M. And that's without food, water, cook kit, or clothing. That sounds like a lot. But then again, when we left for a four day trip in Yosemite that covered over thirty miles in four days...the sutuff worked just fine, and we had a phenomenal trip! Our total pack weights were 35 pounds for P and 25 for M. And our total expenditures (including stove and water filter) were just over $420.

That's not unbearable by any means. We picked up a great aluminum pot for a buck at Goodwill, and that's also where we bought all of our fleece layers. And we left the skillet at home, and didn't bring our tuxedos...but we had all we needed, and that's all that really matters. Those are reasonable pack weights for most people, and if you can carry that, you can have some great adventures in the mountains, even if you don't own the latest ultra-light airskin equipment.

Do we still use that stuff? The answer might surprise you. Over the years, we've upgraded our equipment a bit. We picked up a couple REI Sub-kilo sleeping bags for under $200 each, and that cut almost three pounds off our packweight. And P made a little two-man tent that cut another found pounds of his load. But we still sometimes use the Eureka when we have a guest along, and it works just fine. And our packs? The same old ones we started with. They work just fine, thank you very much.

So now our base weights are lower. For the big three, M carries just six pounds, and P carries about nine. Which means that on a an eight day trip last summer over three 10,000 foot passes, our starting trail weight was 36 pounds for P and 26 for M--only a pound more than that earlier trip in Yosemite.

That was nice, but we could have done the same trip carrying the extra ten pounds between us.

And so can you.

So don't spend your life making constant upgrades to a kit you don't use. Get out there with whatever you have, and over time that equipment will take care of itself. If you REALLY want to look like a pro, it's always better to have older, well-used equipment on your back instead of brand new equipment sitting in your living room.

Always.
Balzaccom

check out our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/



User avatar
balzaccom
Topix Fanatic
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:22 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: It's not about the Bit Three

Postby TehipiteTom » Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:05 am

Amen. When I see people blathering on endlessly about gear, I tune out; as far as I'm concerned, adequate is good enough.
User avatar
TehipiteTom
Founding Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:42 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: It's not about the Bit Three

Postby sparky » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:03 pm

It's not about gear, its about experiencing the beauty of nature, nothing more nothing less.
There is a million ways to be human, all are worthwhile.

True happiness is the absence of striving for happiness.
-Chuang Tzu.
User avatar
sparky
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:01 am
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: It's not about the Bit Three

Postby Hetchy » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:19 pm

Forgive me for pointing this out but you began by stating it's not about the big three..
Then you proceed to tell us how the only upgrades you made over the years were to the big three.
Except for the packs that is.
It might surprise you to know that a big three weight of 9lbs and 6 lbs respectively is very geeky.
I think the reason the Big Three get so much attention is that is where the biggest reduction in weight can be made. Cutting the handle off a toothbrush is sensless and save a mere fraction of an ounce.
You changed your big three and dropped 10 lbs. Thats a huge deal of stress reduction on knees, feet, back, and energy required to climb those passes.
If the big three are not important to you why bother to weigh them?

Are you sure a couple of cuben fiber Z-packs aren't in your future?
Just funnin' Ya! :p
:D
I like your website! Thanks for the link.
You can make more money, but you can't make more time.
User avatar
Hetchy
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:51 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains Ben Lomond
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: It's not about the Bit Three

Postby balzaccom » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:31 am

OH, we're pretty geeky about it now, no question. But we worry about newbies who are so concerned about weight that they spend more time adding up ouces than they spend on the trail.

After all, every bit of advice here contains the usual YMMV disclaimer. And the only way to find out what works for you is to get out on the trail.

As for your last point about toothbrushes....where's my hacksaw?
Balzaccom

check out our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
User avatar
balzaccom
Topix Fanatic
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:22 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: It's not about the Bit Three

Postby Cross Country » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:21 pm

In 25 years (550 days) I used at least 4 different packs, 4 sleeping bags and 5 tents (at least). The weight I carried depended on who I was with. With my sons I carried between 45 and 65 pounds. With someone who liked to hike fast I might carry 25 pounds for a 5 day trip. I agree. It was all about getting out there which I never had a problem doing. One summer I BP'd 25+ days, surfed 15+ days and played 50+ softball games. On my off days I rode my bike. Oh to be young. I was only 48 years old.
Cross Country
Topix Fanatic
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:16 am
Experience: N/A


Return to Backpacking / Hiking / Camping



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests