Backpacking Equipment

Part of the culture of long distance backpacking involves the equipment you are expected to use. I say expected because with any culture there is pressure to conform. Back in the seventies “weight is no object” was a popular slogan. If you were not carrying a heavy pack you were under suspicion of not being prepared enough for long stints in the wilderness, which of course was supposed to be your reason for wanting to hike long distances. Now the cultural emphasis is on lightweight hiking and high mileage days that minimize the length of a hike and the length of a stretch in between supplies.

The trouble with conforming to any culture is the amazing variety of human nature. In the seventies people carried heavy packs who might have enjoyed high mileage hiking. Now there are thru-hikers doing high miles who might find they’d love extending their stay in wilderness. Hiking experts nowadays would encourage going as light as possible in either case. Having worn all manner of packs for all manner of hiking objectives I disagree. There are two pieces of heavier backpacking equipment I think best for most, not all, styles of hiking.

The first is the backpack itself. I purchased new external frame packs for us for this hike (Cindy does not like internal frame packs),but I still have my other external frame pack that has been good for 10,000 miles. Compared with a well-made, “durable” internal frame pack, a well-made external frame pack is all the more durable yet costs $100 or so less. The trade-off: about 2-3 pounds heavier than the well built internal frame. The external frame pack also provides greater versatility for various packing and camping uses.

For example, multiple times throughout the day I sit on my pack as the most convenient and comfortable option. The external pack can be a chair, even a recliner. The internal frame would not be as comfortable nor as durable for such usage.

I’ve left a detail out of this option, the sleeping bag on the pack I sit on. I carry a synthetic bag, about 3 pounds heavier than its down counterpart. I was particularly dismayed with the dogmatic assertion in a PCT guidebook that a down bag is the only reasonable way to go. Aside from the down bag being at least $200 more expensive than a synthetic with the same temperature rating, you might as well multiply that greater loss because the down bag is less durable and has a greater loss of effectiveness when compromised.

The down bag also loses effectiveness more when wet. Sure, sure, an expert backpacker should be able to avoid getting there sleeping bag wet, but that becomes increasingly difficult with the length of time spent out in the wilderness. I recall one five day stretch of constant rain, hiking high mileage out to the nearest town not an option, when everything ended up smelling like mildew. At least I had a synthetic bag that kept me warm throughout. It also made for a much better chair than would a down bag.

This combination of an external frame and synthetic bag adds about 5-6 pounds of base weight over the lightweight counterparts. For a person wanting to maximize their time in the wilderness I suggest this trade-off is a no-brainer. For the high mileage hike this added weight probably lessens the distance for a comfortable day of hiking by about 5 miles. That’s a difference of 30-35 miles per day. For some people that extra 5 miles makes a difference, but not for all the thru-hikers currently enculturated to hike the PCT a certain way.