Quantcast
Channel: FJÄDERLÄTT
Viewing all 83 articles
Browse latest View live

Along The Rockwall Trail in the Canadian Rockies

$
0
0
Look at any list of the top 5-10 hikes in the Canadian Rockies and you will find The Rockwall Trail on it. One source said that it was so popular in summer that getting a permit might be as tough as the actual hiking. Another source: "The Rockwall Trail is located in Kootenay National Park, a part of the Canadian Rockies UNESCO World Heritage Site. It’s a 3 – 5 day tough backpacking trip covering 55 kms (34 miles) one way. Start at the Floe Lake Trailhead and finish at the Paint Pots Trailhead." 
I was looking for a longer hike, since I had the time, and managed to extend my hike with an extra day or two, continuing into Yoho National Park and finishing at the town of Field, of Burgess Shale fame. I was not too happy about having to book campsites, no wild camping allowed, which sort of kept me to the 10 km per day between campsites. On the second day I skipped Numa Campground and hiked 20 km, which was more fulfilling. Still, I realize the need to channel visitors in popular areas. I have experienced the same thing in Yellowstone.
And it was worth it. The Rockwall Trail is a magnificent piece of mountain scenery. 

By Jörgen Johansson



Dropped by friend Per at the Floe Lake trailhead, I had food for five days in my pack. On my feet the Altra Lone Peaks I use for dry and dusty trails. The Salomon Tech Amphibs I had used in the wet lands of the Northwest Territories were getting some rest.
Some of the trails had been closed due to a nearby forest fire until just before I started my hike. This older burn shows how much a part of the ecosystem in the Rockies that fires are.

Once the trail had climbed high enough and left the burns behind the abundantly flowering meadows became a steady commpanion. I had not expected this, considering that my hike began as late in the season as August 20.
Gravelled campsites were standard issue along the Rockwall Trail.

The food was kept safe during the night in these safety deposit boxes. They were in fact big enough for my entire pack, I only kept clothing and electronics in the tent while sleeping.
The main idea about the campsites is that eating and sleeping should be kept separate. To this food area, and the lockers, where located some 50-100 meters away from the tent sites.
When morning broke, the mist and the clouds from the day before were gone. The sun rose and shone on the rockwall across Floe Lake as I was eating my solitary breakfast.
The morning showed Floe Lake in all its glory.
Floe Lake
Floe Lake
Rockwall above Floe Lake
As could be expected the rockwall was a constant companion as I left Floe Lake on my way to Tumbling Creek campground, some 20 kilometers and two passes away.

I was surprised by the abundance of flowers still in bloom, considering it was August 20.

Looking north from Numa Pass
Numa Pass
Looking down from Numa Pass. I passed the Numa Creek campground, about 10 kilometers from Floe Lake and continued another 10 K to Tumbling Creek Campground, where I had a permit.

The trail towards Tumbling Pass

Viem from Tumbling Pass.
Giant (and I mean giant) moraine deposit by the Tumbling Glacier.

Breakfast in my sleeping bag on a cool and beautiful morning at Tumbling Creek Campground.

View towards Tumbling Glacier.
Taking a break and writing in my diary. The distance to the next campground was only about 10 kilometers, so I took long breaks and enjoyed the beautiful weather.
The scenery along the Rockwall Trail is hard to beat, and the weather was glorious.





Beautiful meadow by the Wolverine Pass.

Extremely sharply defined border between two moraine deposits of differing coarseness. Very strange.

Looking south along the Rockwall from where I came. To the right is Wolverine Pass, the only, but sharply defined "break in the wall". I walked for a brief stretch into the pass, had lunch and basked in the sun, before I returned to the Rockwall Trail.

"The hills are alive with the sound of music..."

The part of the rockwall behind me, going north, certainly looks like a wall. Where it ends, by Helmet Falls, the trail heads off towards a trailhead on Hwy 93.
Camp at Helmet Falls campground.
Helmet Falls, one of the highest falls in the Rocky Mountains with a total height of 352 meters.
This was also a short day. It was also a hot day, so I spent a couple of hours making coffe in the shade and writing in my diary, before going into Helmet Falls campground. Much nicer sitting here than in the campground.
The end of the rockwall.


View north from Goodsir Pass. Even if I have left the Rockwall Trail, the mountains are still impressive.

View looking back up along Goodsir Creek. I met nobody for the two days after I left the Rockwall Trail.

In some places windfall areas like this made the trail a bit tricky to negotiate. It was very obvious that most hikers do the Rockwall Trail and do not continue this way. Which suited me fine...
Goodsir Creek and dense alder along the trail. I have hiked, uphill, in alder like this down in the North Cascades. Awful.

Crossing the Ottertail River close ot MacArthur Creek campground. I would follow this river for the following day.

Since this was another short day I did some laundry and dried my clothes on the rocks by the river in the basking sun.

Morning by Ottertail River. The clear skies were gone and an overcast, but warm, day followed.

A more primitive form of protecting your food from bears and other critters. You hook your food bags to a wire and hoist it up to the top of this metal pole. MacArthur Creek Campground.

Back in civilization, with the Trans Canada Highway #1 to the left and the Canadian Pacific Railway to the right.


Most of the trail (now part of The Great Divide Trail, which is the continuation of The Continental Divide Trail south of the border) into Field was along the railway. Kind of charming, since I met a couple of long freight trains. I counted one that had 167 cars pulled by two engines and pushed by one.
Arriving in the small town of Field it turned out to be solidly booked at every hotel and guest house. I had a nice meal at a very good restaurant and walked a couple of kilometers out of town to pitch my tent. The morning after friend Per picked me up, since there were no public transport to/from Field. Surprising since Greyhound drives right through several times a day.


Ewa har vandrat hela Kungsleden

$
0
0
Ewa Lestrin har vandrat hela Kungsleden ensam i sommar. Vill du veta mer om Ewa och hennes vandringsliv så besök hennes blogg, som heter Ultraliten (www.ultraliten.se). Här frågar jag henne bland annat om vilka "tre stora", de tyngsta prylarna i utrustningen,  hon använde på Kungsleden och hur de fungerade för henne.

By Jörgen Johansson


Jörgen: Kan du kort berätta om vad som gjorde att du ville vandra hela Kungsleden? 

Ewa: Jag hade drömt ganska länge om att göra en långvandring ensam, då jag ville vara fri och göra precis som jag ville, utan att behöva ta hänsyn till någon annan. Att endast behöva kompromissa med min kropp och med naturens krafter. Kungsleden var sådär lagom att börja med då jag inte hade långvandrat förut, aldrig vandrat ensam och aldrig vandrat med tält. Leden är lagom lång med ca 45 mil, vacker, tydlig och ordnad och större delen har ett skyddsnät i form av stugor och båttransporter. Detta gör den idealisk att börja med.


Jörgen:Vilken ryggsäck använde du, varför valde du just den och hur fungerade den under vandringen? För- och nackdelar? 

Ewa: Hyperlight Mountain Gear Windrider 3400. En fantastisk säck! Den är lätt (840g), lagom stor (55L) och har en bärkomfort som slår allt jag provat. Jag är väldigt kort, ultraliten, haha, och har därmed svårt att hitta utrustning som fungerar för mig. Jag har provat mig igenom 19 ryggsäckar innan jag fann HMG:s sortiment. Den har fungerat helt utan problem under vandringen och levt upp till alla mina krav. Enda nackdelen är att den är vit. Men det är bara en helt personlig preferens. Känns som att den lyser som en strålkastare. Skulle aldrig annars välja något vitt som färg på vandringsutrustning. Är en mer röd- och grå-gillande person 😊

Som extra utrustning har jag ett topplock (förvaring av regnkläder) och två extrafickokr från Zpacks. De är fastsatta på axelremmarna och här förvaras vattenflaska, myggnät, regnvantar och kamera.

Jörgen: Vilket tält använde du, varför valde du just det och hur fungerade det under vandringen? För- och nackdelar? 

Ewa: Hilleberg Enan.Det är tåligt, rätt väl-ventilerat och är hyfsat lätt (1200g). Det har bra absid- och sovutrymme. Ändarna på yttertältet är i nät för bättre ventilation. Jag hade även ett footprint till det för att minska markfukten. Tältet har fungerat väl, men haft lite problem med kondens då det var vindstilla under många nätter. I övrigt har det varit jättebra! Snabbt och enkelt att resa.

Jag tog ur innertältet varje morgon och packade det inne i ryggsäcken. Yttertältet packade jag på utsidan då jag reste det för lunch om det var sämre väder och jag kunde också alltid packa i och ur ryggsäcken utan att innehållet blev blött. Körde detta under hela vandringen.

Jörgen: Vilken sovutrustning använde du, varför valde du just den och hur fungerade den under vandringen? För- och nackdelar? 

Ewa: Sovsäcken var en Rab Neutrino 400 dam. Den är rätt lätt (888g inkl sin vattentäta påse), lagom stor, med impregnerat dun och hade en damkomforttemperatur på -4gr. En fördel är att den är bred, så jag kan ligga med uppdragna ben. Nackdelen var att den inte höll -4gr i min komfort. Under 0gr sov jag i dubbla långkalsonger, dubbla strumpor, ull underställströja, skjorta och varm syntetjacka samt två luvor och yllemössa... och jag frös ändå vissa nätter.

Liggunderlaget är Exped Synmat UL 160cm. Det är rektangulärt (rullar av de mumieformade av någon anledning) och lagom tjockt. Superbekvämt att sova på! Nackdelen är att det knarrar en hel del och det isolerar inte från markkylan. Mellan liggunderlaget och sovsäcken lade jag en tunn cellplast, ett vindruteskydd för bilar, som isolering. Funkade jättebra.

Eftersom jag är beroende av att sova bra så lyxade jag och tog med en uppblåsbar kudde från Siden Selma. Jag är väldigt nöjd med den då jag sov i nästan alla kläder varje natt och kunde alltså inte använda dessa som kudde. Slutligen hade ett sidenlakan från Siden Selma. Bland annat för att hålla sovsäcken ren och höja värmegraden men också för att använda de nätter jag sov inomhus, i stuga eller på fjällstation.


Jörgen: Vad använde du för skodon, varför valde du just dem och hur fungerade de under vandringen? För- och nackdelar? 

Ewa: Lowa Renegade. Jag har storlek 33 i skor, så jag har inte riktigt de valmöjligheter som andra vuxna har. De är lätta för att vara av traditionell kängtyp och väldigt bekväma. Det är som att gå i en gymnastiksko. Under vandringen släppte främre delen av sulan på båda skorna och då läckte det in en del vatten.

Jörgen: Vad är mest minnesvärt från din vandring längs Kungsleden? Skulle du rekommendera andra att göra samma vandring? Skulle du göra det igen? 

Ewa: Jag njöt av att klara mig själv med det jag hade i ryggsäcken. Total frihet! Sen var det mer socialt att solovandra än vad jag trodde, med fördelen att man själv kunde välja om man ville umgås eller inte. En av de bästa dagarna var då jag var upp på Skierfe. Jag rekommenderar varmt att vandra hela leden förutsatt att man gillar folk och ordnad led med bra skyddsnät. Vill absolut vandra den igen! Har numera många insikter i hur jag fungerar och vad jag ska göra annorlunda nästa gång.

Jörgen: Det låter intressant. Vad skulle du göra annorlunda nästa gång? 

Ewa: Främst handlar det om insikter i hur jag själv fungerar. Först här kommer maten. Jag är normalt inte hungrig alls när jag vandrar, men jag trodde att "den stora vandringshungern" skulle infinna sig och att jag då skulle äta ordentligt. Den infann sig inte alls på 25 dagar. Nästa gång ska jag ta med en mindre mängd, men betydligt godare, mat. Och strunta i vikten på maten.

Upptäckte att jag inte äter sådant som jag hemmavid tycker är helt ok, men ute på vandring blir den äcklig. Jag släpade på åtskilliga kilo mat som jag sen gav bort. Likaså ska jag ta med andra snacks, då jag inte kan med nötter och ölkorv efter en vecka. Vanlig choklad var inte heller gott.

Sen är jag uppenbarligen en väldigt frusen person. Min dunsovsäck, med -4gr i komfort temp för dam, var inte tillräcklig för att hålla mig varm, även fast jag sov i alla mina kläder. Sovsystemet ska därför kompletteras med en ytterdel av en tunn syntetsäck. Detta för att minska kondensen i dunsäcken, för skydda mot vätan på bröstet och för att höja isoleringsförmågna.

Då detta var min första vandring med tält, så var jag lite för rädd för starka vindar för att våga tälta uppe på kalfjället. Nästa gång ska jag vara modigare. Mitt Hilleberg är ju gjort för riktig fjällmiljö. Förutom detta har min utrustning funkat perfekt. Jag har använt allt (utom sjukvård) och jag har inte saknat något. Kläder och annan utrustning har fungerat utmärkt, så där kommer jag inte att göra några förändringar alls.

Malin about lightweight gear on the Pacific Crest Trail

$
0
0
Malin Klingsell,  Swedish hiker and vegan, blogging at www.friluftsvegan.se, took 6 months off from work and went to the US to hike the Pacific Crest Trail. I talked to her about her hike and the lightweight gear she used. 

Jörgen: Could you briefly tell us about the PCT and what made you want hike it? How far and for how long did you hike?

Malin: The Pacific Crest Trail is a 2650 miles long trail, in the US from Campo at the Mexican border to Canada. It is a challenging trail that goes up and down mountains, first in the desert, then through the high snowy Sierra and lastly through green forests and over mountains in Oregon and Washington.

I read an article in a magazine about Linda Åkerberg who hiked the whole trail in 2016. I had already wanted to do a long hike and now it was the right time in my life to do it. Two days after reading the article, I had got 6 months off from work and started planning my adventure. It just felt so right! My plan was to do a thru-hike, which means to hike the whole trail in the same year. But it turned out to be a tougher year than usual with lots of snow and that slowed me down.

After having to skip parts of the Sierra because of safety I lost some motivation and then it was a combination of reasons that made me decide to quit early. I hiked for 4 months and 1328 miles (2137km) in total. I am proud of every single mile. It was an amazing experience. Very tough, but also very rewarding.
 
 
Jörgen: What kind of backpack did you use, what made you choose it and how did it work on the trail? Pros and cons?

Malin: I hiked all 1328 miles with an ULA Circuit. I chose it after reading about the most common backpacks used on the PCT. It turned out to be a good choice. I never regretted it. Pros and cons: A relatively light backpack that weighs 41 ounces (1.16kg) and holds 68L. It has a roll top so it can be adjusted in size to its contents.

It was very comfortable up to a certain weight. I seldom weighed my backpack, but I noticed that when it was fully loaded with food and water it hurt my shoulders. It didn't sit well enough on my hips then. But at lower weights I had no problem at all. It has nice big sidepockets and a huge front mesh pocket. I could miss having a top pocket at times, but I got used to organizing my pack and started liking it more and more. It is a light pack so it has few extras. But it still has everything you need for a long distance hike. Most of the friends I met had the same pack like me or changed to it eventually.

Jörgen: What kind of shelter/tent did you use, what made you choose it and how did it work on the trail? Pros and cons?

Malin: I started my hike with a Zpacks Duplex tent. A true UL tent made of Dyneema Composite Fabric that weighs 595 grams. Pros: Very light and it has a lot of space for one person as it is a 2 person tent. Cons: This tent actually drove me insane haha.

The Duplex is not freestanding, and the strong winds and hard ground in the desert made it very difficult to set up and get it to keep standing. My first "trail name" was Rocks, because I had to secure all the stakes with lots and lots of rocks. But even with all the rocks it fell down in my face multiple times. 

One night the desert winds were extra strong, they were howling in the valley. The tent collapsed on me four times that night. My headlamp was out of order, so trying to set it up in the dark was hard. After a while I gave up and curled into a ball in the middle of the tent. I woke up covered in sand. I had sand between my teeth. When I went out of the tent I saw a small tent next to the fireplace. It looked like it hadn't moved during the night and out came a smiling and rested hiker. I decided there and then, that was the tent I wanted.

So after about 1 month of struggling with the Zpacks tent, I bought a Big Agnes Copper Spur HV UL 1. Pros: Freestanding, double layers (one with mesh and one rain cover), lots of nice pockets, plenty of space for being a one person tent. Easy to set up, easy to take down. I loved it! Setting it up made me happy every time, when I compared it to my first tent. It keeps the heat better, it performed well in rain, it dries fast. I can fit myself and all my gear in it if I need to. It is even possible to sleep two persons (without gear) if you like to cuddle. Cons: Heavier than the Zpacks (but oh so worth it!). Weighs 1.13kg. I also bought a extra ground sheet from Big Agnes.


 Jörgen: What kind of sleeping gear did you use, what made you choose it and how did it work on the trail? Pros and cons?

Malin: This question is tough for me to answer, because I really wanted to do the whole hike without buying any animal products. However, because of my own safety I had to buy an ethical down bag about a month into the hike.

This is why. I started out with an As Tucas Sestrals Blanket, apex 200, size M. Weighing 670g. Plus insulated pants and a balaclava, also from As Tucas, to keep me warm. All of the items were insulated with synthetic material, which is why I chose it.

Pros: Very light. It can be buttoned up into a partially open bag or completely opened up into a blanket. The insulated pants are amazing and I kept them the whole hike. I called them my fluffy pants and used them very often. It felt like being inside a sleeping bag. Very cozy and warm.

Cons: Unfortunately this sleep system did not keep me anywhere near warm. Even in the desert I was ice cold during the night. Every movement would let cold air sip into the bag and it did not cover my shoulders properly. The balaclava had a too small hole for my face and was quite uncomfortable. I decided I needed something much warmer, especially for the mountains in High Sierra, to keep me safe. I first bought a synthetic sleeping bag, but when it arrived it was gigantic, very heavy, and still didn't keep me warm.

So I googled ethical down, went to the store in Idyllwild and bought a Western Mountaineering Versalite 10F (-12C) bag. It weighs 850 grams. Pros: Really warm, pretty light, compresses into a small volume. The feathers are collected from the ground, from birds that are walking freely. Cons: Down. I don't want to support the animal industry and even though it is ethical down I can never know for sure that the animals are treated right. I really hope that the synthetic feathers will become better in the future. For me who is a cold sleeper, a girl (girls typically sleep colder than boys) and vegan, it is really hard to find good options. With that said, if anyone knows about a great vegan bag, please let me know.

When I started the PCT I was a side sleeper (towards the end I could sleep in any position), so I wanted to find the most comfortable mattress for my hip. After reading about different options I chose Thermarest NeoAir XLite. The first one I bought was the womens version, a bit shorter and warmer than the regular version. It turned out to be a bit too short though and after cowboy camping under the stars a few weeks into the trail, it got a few holes in it. So instead I ordered the regular version (350 grams) and it was much better in length. I was very happy with my mattress, it was really comfortable and I slept suprisingly well. The only downside was that it can be a bit noisy at times, but mostly it didn't bother me.

Many people had the foam pad Thermarest ZLite Sol. Some had just that foam pad and others had an inflatable pad on top. I was always jealous of that pad because of how nice it was during breaks. It is very durable, but in my meaning also very uncomfortable to sleep on. After a week in the Sierra I needed more insulation against the cold from the snow, so I bought the small version of the ZLite Sol (340 grams, on a side note, many hikers actually started with the regular size, but then cut off a lot of the pad to save grams). From the second I bought it, I loved it. For the Sierra it gave me lots of insulation with double pads and for all the naps during the breaks it was heaven. It also protected my inflatable pad. I have heard you can get used to sleeping on only this pad and it is all about your own comfort level and what you prioritize to carry in your pack.

After the Sierra I just couldn't let go of the Zlite Sol and continued carrying double mattresses. From an ultra light perspective, this might be madness. But after spending months in the wilderness, it became very clear what was important to me, and therefor worth carrying. I also had an inflatable pillow, that I at one point gave up during a shake down (this is when somebody goes through your pack and tells you what to leave behind). But after a week I really missed it and took it back. Worth its weight in gold to me. Made all the difference in comfort level. I tried clothes in a stuff sack as a pillow and of course it works, but it just isn't very comfortable. But again this is about preference.


Jörgen: What kind of footwear did you use, what made you choose it, and how did it work on the trail? Pros and cons?

Malin: I chose Altra Lone Peak 3.0, trail runners, for the desert. I chose them because they are very popular on the pct and they are also vegan. Pros: Light and comfortable. Dries fast. Lots of space for the toes. Cons: They killed my heals. I had constant blisters on my heals wearing these shoes. For the high Sierra I chose Altra Lone Peak 3.0 Neoshell Mid. Pros: Very comfortable, no blisters and no problems with my heals. Cons: They get very wet in the snow. After the high Sierra I continued hiking with the Neoshell shoes as they were much better for my feet. Yes the question about membranes like Gore tex and copies like Neoshell in shoes is an interesting one, I think. For me it never really kept my feet dry, just slowed down the drying process. My new shoes are actually the new model from Altra with mesh instead. Altra Lone Peak Mid Mesh 3.5. My feet will get wet anyways but now they will have a chance to get dry.

It is a general thinking on the PCT, that boots is a no go, at least for the sections without snow. Everybody thinks about being as ultra light as possible and that anything you put on your feet weighs a few times more what you put on the rest of your body. For me it was a new way of thinking, but I really liked it. The desert is a really hot place and wearing boots there really doesn't make sense.


For the High Sierra, however, the opinions on which shoes to wear were not as unified. Some continued to wear trail runners with normal gaiters, others bought a mix between trail runner and boot (like I did with the Mids) and others bought big boots. Most people bought snow gaiters. Different choices have different pros and cons.

Trail runners: Very light. Gets really wet in snow, but also dries very fast. Can't be worn with crampons, only with micro spikes, which means less grip in the snow.
Light boot: More support for the feet, slightly more waterproof, but also dries a bit slower. Works with both micro spikes and crampons.
Heavy boot: Good support for the feet, but also heavier. Better water resistance, but if they get wet it is very hard to get them dry again. My friend had heavy boots and he loved them, until they got wet. He didn't have to use crampons most of the time, because the traction underneath the shoes was good enough. In general, his feet was definetaly drier than mine. But they were not good for walking on any hard surface, as they are very stiff and hurt the feet.



 Jörgen: What is most memorable from your PCT hike? Is it something you would recommend? Do again?

Malin: All the people I met. The amazing trail angels that help out along the way. The mental and physical challenge of being out in nature for months and pushing my boundaries. I recommend it to everyone who wants an adventure! I am sure I will be back on the PCT one way or another, I just don't know when. I might hike the sections I missed or try the whole trail again. The trail for sure has a special place in my heart!

Shelter for forest part I

$
0
0
As Coast to Coast Sweden looms nearer I have begun to think about the kind of shelter I will use this year. Last years event was cold and damp, moisture was literally dripping from both the inner and outer walls of the Hilleberg Enan I used.
The same heavy condensation was also a factor when I hiked the John Muir Trail in October, using a Gossamer Gear The One for shelter.

So I have decided to make a shelter that will beat both of those for use in protected areas, like the forest.

By Jörgen Johansson

What I am looking for is spacious, windproof and well ventilating shelter that does not weigh more than 500 grams. I will start with the Cuben fiber tarp that you see in the above photo, from my packrafting trip down the South Nahanni River a couple of years ago. In this photo it is an extra roof over my Gossamer Gear The One.

During this trip when I backpacked into the Moose Ponds, source of the Nahanni, and then drifted down the river, I had some special needs. The tarp was usually where I did all my cooking, if it was raining. I pitched it a goodly distance from the tent, to minimize the risk of attracting bears to a sweet smelling tent with me sleeping inside.


I also used this tarp, weighing 200 grams, as a sole shelter for Coast2Coast Sweden in 2013. It worked well, pretty condensation free, but on a windy night (I did not use a bivy) the exposed sleeping bag left me less than warm. I have an innertent for my Trailstar that I have used for a couple of summers in Alaska as well as on the tundra in northern Sweden. The lower part is windproof and the upper part of this inner is bug mesh. A good combination, but less warm than a full fabric inner tent.

The plan now is to make an inner tent from lightweight ripstop and use Cuben fiber for a waterproof floor. In combination with the tarp this should be a good solution for 'hinge' season backpacking where temperatures hover around or slightly below freezing. For exposed areas above timberline this is probably not an ideal solution, it might not be able to manage high winds and drifting rain as well as for instance my Trailstar or a 'real' tent.

I will keep you posted on how this project develops.

Blöta fötter i fjällen - hur stort problem?

$
0
0
Teori/Praktiki Vi lägger ned mycket energi på att hålla våra fötter torra när vi är ute och vandrar. Frågan är: Varför? Och finns det några alternativ?
Den här artikeln känns nog till vissa delar igen av de som läst Vandra fjäderlätt, men några nya tankar och erfarenheter finns med.
Av Jörgen Johansson

Varför hålla fötterna torra?
Anledningen till att man vill hålla fötterna torra är att de, liksom den övriga kroppen, lätt blir nedkylda om de blir blöta. Vi vet att det är viktigt att kläderna på kroppen är torra för att hålla isoleringsförmågan. Likså gäller det att välja basplagg, kläderna närmast huden, så att hudytan hålls torr även om man svettas. Svett är kroppen sätt att reglera temperaturen, vätska som övergår från fast form till gas på hudytan har en mycket kraftigt svalkande, eller nedkylande, effekt.

Vad vid Unna Räitajaure

Så det finns en sund logik bakom att hålla fötterna torra i alla väder. Våta fötter blir lättare kalla fötter än vad torra blir.

Fötternas historia är våt
Om man tittar på mänsklighetens historia, från grottfolken och framåt, så är det under en väldigt kort period som vi människor haft möjlighet att hålla fötterna torra i alla väder. Och det är naturligtvis också så att en majoritet av jordens befolkning ännu idag saknar denna möjlighet. Är det blött så blir de blöta om fötterna.


Stuor Räitajåkk
Men en majoritet av jordens befolkning bor i ett varmare klimat än vad som gäller i de skandinaviska fjällen. Våta fötter blir inte lika kalla i monsunens Indien som i Sjaunjas myrmarker.

Detta är helt rätt, men det jag framförallt vill hävda med ovanstående resonmang är att våta fötter:
a) Behöver inte vara ett hot mot bekvämlighet eller överlevnad.
b) Om våta fötter också blir kalla fötter beror på omständigheterna.

Även på våra breddgrader var det först var med införandet av gummistöveln som man garanterat kunde skydda fötterna mot fukt utifrån. Och gummistövlar började produceras 1853. Naturligtvis dröjde det åtskilliga decennier innan de blev allmänt kända och tillgängliga både av distributions- och prisskäl. I vår fjäll gick även sedan gummistöveln kommit gärna i näbbskor av skinn med skohö. Dessa var inte alltid så täta även med flitig smörjning.

Omständigheter är påverkbara
Om det är något som kännetecknar den mänskliga rasen så är det en enastående förmåga att anpassa sig efter omständigheterna. Men också att anpassa omständigheterna så att de passar oss.

Luftning och torkning av fötterna vid rast

På samma sätt kan man med lite kunskap anpassa omständigheterna och sig själv så att man inte behöver bli kall av blöta fötter.

För det är inte med nödvändighet så att fötterna blir kalla när de är fuktiga. De flesta vandrare har upplevt blöta fötter oavsett vilka skodon man har, och vet att man håller värmen hyfsat ändå, så länge man är i rörelse. Vattnet i skorna och strumporna värms upp av foten och blir sedan ett slags våtvarmt omslag. Det är ungefär samma princip som i en våtdräkt och detta fungerar så länge det av kroppen uppvärmda vattnet inte ersätts av nytt, kallt vatten alltför frekvent.

Den stora nackdelen med de här våtvärma omslagen är att fötterna, och framförallt huden, inte mår väl av det. Huden mjuknar och blir rynkig. Efter en långvarig blötläggning finns risken att man kan plocka bort obehagligt stora, mjuka hudbitar med bara fingrarna. Skavsår är väl annars den vanligaste effekten när huden mjukas upp på detta sätt. Den varma och fuktiga miljön är också en mumsig miljö för olika mikrorganismer vilket ger en dålig lukt och risk för infektioner i sår och blåsor.

Som en följd av detta lär sig fjällvandraren att det inte är bra att bli våt om fötterna och att detta är något man bör försöka undvika. Så nästa gång smörjer man kängorna ännu noggrannare, eller köper nya kängor med ännu rejälare, och tyngre, ytterhölje och nytt och ännu bättre mextex-foder. Eller så säger man aldrig mer till kängor och byter till gummistövlar. Detta hände mig efter en hösttur i Skäckerfjällen för 30 år sedan, när mina bondförbundare snabbt blev dyngsura av blötsnön och förblev så hela veckan.

Att vara blöt om fötterna har definitivt sina nackdelar, men oftast fryser man som sagt inte så länge man rör sig och genererar metabolisk värme.

Det senare är så viktigt att jag upprepar det: Man fryser oftast inte om blöta fötter så länge man rör sig och genererar värme.

Mitt första test
Detta var också teorin bakom mitt första försök med gympadojor på vandring. Inför en oktobertur i Tjeggelvas skogsödemarker gjorde jag slag i saken. Jag köpte några tunna damnylonstrumpor på Konsum i Arvidsjaur och började vandringen med mina vadar-/lägerskor på fötterna, istället för i ryggsäcken. I det råkalla oktobervädret förvandlades mina blöta fötter dock ganska raskt till iskalla klumpar. Så jag drog på mig yllesockarna och gummistövlarna (som var med i packningen) igen, och förpassade gympadojorna till ryggsäcken för resten av veckan.
Det är fortfarande så att även om gummistövlarna är osexiga så håller de fötterna torra som inget annat. Men för en lättpackare är gummistövlar oftast inte något bra alternativ eftersom de oftast är rejält tunga. Och även om mitt första test inte var någon omedelbar succé, så låg tankarna där och gnagde. Om man bara kunde hålla fötterna varmare när det var sådär kallt, så var ju de där löparskorna faktiskt betydligt lättare och skönare att gå i. Och en oktobertur i de fjällnära skogarna var kanske inte ett helt representativt försök. Det kanske skulle fungera bättre med de lätta skorna på sommarvandringar? Fast även då kan det ju bli rejält kallt och blött.
Men om man istället hade något som kunde hålla fötterna torra och varma vid behov, om det var riktigt kallt? Jag hade läst om sockor från det brittiska företaget Sealskinz. Dessa användes i snö och slask av vandrare i sandaler. Sagt och gjort, jag skaffade mig ett par sådana strumpor. Dessa sockor ser ut som vilka stickade syntetsockor som helst, bara en aning tjockare. Detta beror på ett Mextex-membran, som alltså är både vattentätt och släpper igenom vattenånga.

Vid kortare passager av snölegor behöver fötterna inte bli kalla trots tunna strumpor

Eureka, det fungerade bra vid tester i hemmaskogarna. Den avgörande prövningen blev en sommarvandring på 50 mil genom den svenska fjällkedjan. Vanligen gick jag under denna vandring i tunna strumpor (investeringen från Konsum i Arvidsjaur visade sig mycket hållbar) och snabbtorkande lätta skor med överdel i nät och blev mycket riktigt blöt, men utan att bli kall.

När vädret blev bistrare och fötterna började stelna till så drog jag på mig mina Sealskinz och då höll sig fötterna varma. Och inte ett skavsår fick jag på hela turen. Mina fötter hade aldrig mått så bra under någon vandring jag någonsin genomfört. Sedan dess är jag av förståeliga skäl såld på att använda lätta skor och strumpor, samt vid behov skydda fötterna om omständigheterna gör att de riskerar att bli kalla. Det känns som ett bättre alternativ än att ständigt gå omkring med ett skydd, även när det inte behövs. Ungefär som att gå i ett tungt regnställ när det inte regnar.

Mina skor idag
Ända sedan min första långtur med lätta skor har jag använt Salomon Tech Amphibian. Detta är lätta och snabbtorkande (fattas bara) vattensportskor. De är egentligen inte avsedda för vandring eller löpning i stor skala, och är synnerligen sladdriga eftersom bakkappan är avsedd att kunna trampas ned för att skorna skall kunna användas som tofflor.

Med Salomon Tech Amphibian och vattentäta strumpor på Kebnekaise Sydtopp
 Det enda jag kan säga om dem är egentligen att de fungerat så bra för mig att jag envisas med att köpa nya varje år. Jag vågar liksom inte prova något annat...

Rent generellt rekommenderar jag dock att var och en som vill testa det här systemet provar ut några lätta och sköna skor av typen trailrunners eller terränglöpningsskor. Hur olika skor sitter och fungerar är oerhört individuellt, så var och en måste avgöra vad som passar bäst. Få människor verkar trivas med att gå i så mjuka skor som jag.

Viktigt är att skorna torkar snabbt, för på långtur i skog eller fjäll så kommer de att bli blöta. Om och om igen. Minimalt med stoppning och läder alltså. Likaså anser jag att Mextex-foder inte bara är meningslöst utan också kontraproduktivt för lågskor under vandring. Vatten kommer att rinna över kanten och ned i skorna förr eller senare. Ett mextexfoder innebär i detta läge bara att det tar längre tid för vattnet att dränera ut och för skorna att torka.

Mextexfodrade träningskor är utmärkta för stadsbruk och för annan användning på hårdgjort underlag där man oftast kan undvika att hamna i vatten ovanför skokanten. Vilket naturligvis är det ändåmål för vilket 90% av sådana skor också används.

Mina strumpor idag 1
Mina favoritstrumpor är fortfarande de ankelsockor av nylon på 30 eller 50 denier som kan inhandlas på ICA eller Konsum. Andra strumpor jag provat tar bara längre tid på sig att torka när de blir blöta och kyler därmed foten under längre tid. Men jag vet många som svär på att tunna yllesockar är suveräna. Var och en får prova sig fram.

Tunna nylonstrumpor, i detta fall långa och utanpå hemsydda mextex-sockar

Min gissning är att dessa tunna strumpor är vad jag har på fötterna när jag vandrar under 75% av tiden. Detta är naturligtvis i viss mån väder- och terrängberoende. Men jag har vandrat med detta system genom bäckar och snöfält i Sarek, i stenskravel i Unna Räitavagge, över Pyramidpasset och upp på Kebnekaise sydtopp.

Så länge jag håller mig i rörelse så är mina fötter varma och oftast lite småfuktiga. Men det är en fuktighet som inte är instängd och uppvärmd och mjukar upp huden. Snarare en slags naturlig fuktighet som nog följt människan sedan grottåldern och som mina fötter inte på verkar fara illa av. Jag har aldrig haft något skavsår sedan jag började med detta system, vilket var motsatsen till situationen när jag använde stövlar och kängor.

Mina strumpor idag 2
De återstående 25% av vandringen är när de blöta fötterna tenderar att bli kalla trots att jag rör mig med packning på ryggen. Detta inträffar antingen när jag går långa sträckor i kallvatten, som myr, eller när det är längre perioder av regn och blåst. Snöfält är sällan något problem om de inte är väldigt långa och blöta. När man väl kommer ut på andra sidan torkar fötterna som regel snabbt till och blir varma.
Rocky Goretex sockar
När jag märker att fötterna börjar bli kalla, och att det som gör dem kalla inte verkar ha något synbart slut, sätter jag på mig vattentäta sockar. Dessa är antingen av märket Sealskinz eller Rocky Goretex. Det finns även Goretexsockar avsedda för cykling som jag hört andra vara nöjda med, men som jag själv aldrig provat. Här finns en särskild artikel som jämför Sealskinz och Rocky Goretex.

Sealskinz i solen efter en blöt förmiddag

Helt enkelt; så fort du blir kall om fötterna så gör något åt det. Vid kortare pauser tar jag ofta av mig skor och strumpor. Det går på några sekunder med den här utrustningen. Vid längre pauser tar jag på mig torra, varma sockar ur packningen. Oftast ett par gamla fiberpälssockar. Dessa är visserligen i det tyngsta laget, men har fördelen att fylla ordentligt innanför de vattentäta sockarna när dessa behövs. Enbart de tunna strumporna innanför Sealskinz räcker inte alltid för att jag skall hålla värmen om det är kallt och blött.

Fördelar med systemet
Den främsta fördelen med systemet är att det är betydligt enklare än något annat jag provat. När man väl accepterat att det är en del i systemet att bli blöt om fötterna så frigörs man från en mängd krångel. Likväl kan det ta emot första gången på morgonen som man med sovsäckvarma fötter kliver i sin första bäck. Men sedan är man fri.

Fri att låta bli att trippa på gräskanter, balansera på stenar eller trampa sig fram på videgrenar för att hålla det farliga vattnet under skoskaftens kant. Fri att slippa pyssla om och smörja sina kängor som rumporna på små spädbarn. Fri att inte behöva ständigt behöva byta mer eller mindre fuktiga sockar mot torra för en bra fotkomfort. Fri att slippa ta av sig kängor och strumpor, binda på ryggsäcken, ta på vadarskorna, vada 3 meter, ta på sig sockor och kängor, gå 100 meter, ta av sig kängor och strumpor, binda på ryggsäcken, ta på vadarskorna, vada 5 meter och så vidare ad nauseam...

En skjorta över fötterna för att hålla värmen under en rast

Den fotfrie vandraren bara vandrar. En bäck är inget som får en att bryta steget, man går i med skor och byxor. Tunna byxor och snabbtorkande skor gör att värmen är tillbaka och det mesta vattnet borta efter 50 meter. Är man 12 år kan man till och med tycka att det är ganska coolt att bara gå rakt ned i vattnet med skor och kläder på, vilket min son gjorde när vi var i Kebnekaise-området. Helt plötsligt var det ingen förälder som tjatade om att han inte skulle blöta ned sig längre.

Mitt lilla tips
Blotta tanken att man skall kunna gå i fjällen utan de traditionella kängorna eller stövlarna är så upprörande för många att jag ibland undrar om man utmanar en grupp religiösa fundamentalister. Många motargument som framförs är sakliga, men många är också mycket känslomässigt färgade. Man vägrar att själv prova och säger ändå utan att blinka till den som faktiskt provat: Det går inte.

Det är coolt att vada i Unna Räitajaure

Jag kan bara redovisa mina egna erfarenheter och min egen uppfattning, vilket jag gjort här ovan. Men jag tror inte att jag är så speciell att mitt system bara fungerar för mig. Mitt råd är därför: Pröva detta i sommar!

Det är väldigt enkelt. De flesta vandrare som använder kängor eller stövlar bär med sig lättare skodon att använda vid vad eller i lägret på kvällen. Köp ett par nylonstrumpor och testa sedan att gå i de lätta skorna och bära de vanliga skodonen i ryggsäcken. Känns det inte bra är det enkelt att byta tillbaka till de vanliga kängorna. Exakt som jag gjorde vid det första testet vid Tjeggelvas.

Du behöver inte köpa några vattentäta sockar om du inte vill. De är ganska dyra och inte särskilt slitstarka. Man kan ta med sig ett par slitstarka plastpåsar att dra på om det blir kallt. De flesta har någon i bekantskapskretsen som har påsar från Systembolaget. Dessa är sega och slitstarka och lagom stora. Torra strumpor inunder och sedan plastpåsen med en blöt strumpa utanpå för att hålla allt på plats funkar bra.

Men om du verkligen vill testa systemet så att du vågar lämna kängorna hemma nästa gång så bör nog satsa på ett par Goretexsockar av lämplig modell. A

Fältbiologernas stridsrop på 70-talet var: Håll stövlarna leriga!

Fjäderlätts stridsrop för 2000-talet är: Håll fötterna blöta!

Diskutera blöta fötter

Lättpackning med barn - några tankar

$
0
0
Teori-praktik Barnfamiljerna som grupp har troligen mer att vinna än de flesta på att gå över till lättpackning. Föräldrarna behöver då inte sitta hemma under under många år, utan kan inviga barnen i något som kan vara en källa till glädje för resten av deras liv. Men att ge råd om vandringar med barn är inte lätt.
Av Jörgen Johansson

"Barn"är ett begrepp som omspänner all från individer som i stort sett är vuxna både fysiskt och mentalt till spädbarn som är totalt beroende av andra för både förflyttning och mat. Så man måste dela in den här gruppen av människor i undergrupper för att komma någonvart. Vad som följer här är några tankar om hur man kan vandra i skandinaviska sommarfjäll med barn i åldrarna 7-15 år eller så.


Läger i Ladjovagge, Kebnekaise

De som läst min bok Vandra fjäderlätt kommer att känna igen många tankar. Men var snäll och notera att mina råd är just råd. Se dem som en hjälp till egen eftertanke. Jag har inte komplett kunskap om alla situationer och alla åldrar och naturligtvis inte heller om alla barn. Använd istället mina tankar till att se vilka turer du kan skapa med de speciella förutsättningar som gäller ditt barn.

Det viktigaste budskapet är ändå att med hjälp av lättpackningens principer så kan bördan även för föräldrarna bli högst hanterlig.

Vad orkar barn?
Frågan beror naturligtvis många olika faktorer med tanke på ålder, styrka och vana vid att vandra. Men generellt så måste man naturligtvis anpassa vandringen så att man inte går längre än att barnen tycker det är OK och orkar med. Vilket inte nödvändigtvis betyder att man inte skall stimulera dem till att pressa sina egna gränser - inom rimliga gränser.

Med full packning mellan Nikka och Keb

Lättare att ge råd kring är (kanske) hur mycket barn orkar bära. En klassiskt tumregel för vuxna när det gäller maxvikter för ryggsäckar vid vandring är att man inte skall bära mer än en tredjedel av sin kroppsvikt. Men att bära så pass stor del av sin kroppsvikt är ingen njutning, tvärtom. Där går alltså den övre gränsen enligt gammal erfarenhet. En fjärdedel av kroppsvikten är mer att rekommendera som maxvikt om man vill orka se sig om kring också. Detta är långt ifrån det jag kallar lättpackning och onödigt tungt.

Låt oss dock börja med att titta på konsekvenserna av de gamla tumreglerna. Mamman på. låt oss säga, 57 kilo ska alltså inte bära mer än 19 kilo och pappan på 75 kilo inte mer än 25 kilo. Så långt är allt gott och väl.

Men lille Kalle som väger 21 kilo ska då helst inte bära mer än sju kilo och för Lisa som väger 39 räcker det med max 13 kilo. Detta är då absolut max, enligt de gamla reglerna. Vill föräldrarna dessutom att barnen ska vilja hänga med ut ytterligare någon gång under sin uppväxt bör de alltså bära max en fjärdedel eller knappt det, av sina respektive kroppsvikter. Kalle bär då högst fem kilo och Lisa tio. Allt under förutsättning att den gamla tumregeln gäller även för barn i deras ålder, vilket inte är säkert. Men vi har etablerat lite hållpunkter för vårt planerande.

Vilken utrustning behövs?
Problemet är att med traditionell friluftsutrustning så är Kalles och Lisas prylar inte speciellt mycket lättare än pappas och mammas, även om barnen är mindre till växten och orkar bära mindre. Båda barnen behöver ryggsäck, sovsäck, liggunderlag, regnkläder, förstärkningsplagg och så vidare. Äter gör de dessutom också. Något som mycket snabbt leder till att Kalles och Lisas maximala packningsvikter uppnås. Och resten av det som behövs får mamma och pappa bära. Vilket leder till att deras respektive maxvikter inte bara uppnås, utan passeras i racerfart.

Det här leder lätt till att föräldrarna stannar hemma istället för att göra det de skulle vilja, att ta med sina barn på vandring. Eller möjligen vandrar man mellan stugor, vilket absolut inte är någon dålig lösning. Bortsett från att man faktiskt skulle vilja ligga i tält, både för sin egen skull och för att lära barnen hur härligt det kan vara på en vandring bortom allfarvägarna.

För den som har läst min bok Vandra fjäderlätt är det förmodligen uppenbart att mycket går att vinna genom att tillämpa de tankesätt och de tekniker för lättpackning som beskrivs där även på barn och deras packning. Här öppnar sig nya möjligheter för familjer att vandra fjäderlätt och göra ordentliga långvandringar utan att varken barnen eller föräldrarna knäcker sig på kuppen.

Hur gör man då?
När man använt bokens tips för att skaffa sig själv en riktigt lätt packning är det bara att applicera samma teknik på barnens utrustning. Man tittar på det tyngsta först, de tre stora, och ser vad man kan göra.

Sked 10 gram, matskål 17 gram, Jakob 45 kg

Enligt min erfarenhet så kan man utan problem låta även hyfsat små barn bära all sin egen personliga utrustning, under förutsättning att man väljer lätta saker. Detta kan sägas gälla från 7-9-årsåldern och uppåt. I personlig utrustning ingår då ryggsäck, sovsäck, liggunderlag, regnplagg, värmeplagg, eventuellt ombyte, sked och mugg. Detta behöver inte väga mer än 4-5 kilo, vilket innebär att barn som väger runt 20 kilo skulle kunna bära detta. Normalt innebär en sådan vikt att barnen är i 6-7 årsåldern. Innan barnen nått denna ålder får alltså mamma och pappa bära en del av barnens personliga grejor också. Men så länge barnens personliga utrustning också är lätt så blir det ändå inte samma påfrestning för föräldrarna. Och om föräldrarna måste bära även barnens ryggsäck periodvis så gäller naturligtvis samma sak. Ju lättare desto...lättare.

En 5-7 dagars vandring innebär då att packningen landar på 10-12 kilo om barnen bär sin egen mat, som då väger 750-1 000 gram per dag. Barn från 40 kilo och uppåt skulle då kunna bära sin egen utrustning och sin egen mat. Och allteftersom de blir större kan de ta över en del av den gemensamma utrustning som inneburit att mammas och pappas ryggsäckar vägt ytterligare några kilon.

Upp på Kebnekaise?
En fjällvandring jag gjorde med min 13-årige son Jakob kan ses som en tillämpning på de här tankarna. Det hela började med att Jakob ville upp på Kebnekaise sydtopp. Efter lite försiktiga frågor framkom att han nog hade tänkt sig att göra detta tillsammans med pappa. Sedan satte planerandet igång under vintern.

Vi konstaterade att om han ville vara säker på att faktiskt se något från toppen så behövdes ett antal dagars spelrum. Om vädret var dåligt så var det nödvändigt att vi hade tid att vänta. Vi landade på en veckovandring, vilket i praktiken innebar 5-6 dagars vandring och resten resor till och från hemmet. Tanken var att gå från Nikkaluokta till Keb och sedan göra en bestigning längs Västra leden under dag två. Om detta inte fungerade så skulle vi tura lite i grannskapet och hela tiden ha Durlings led eller Västra leden inom räckhåll. När det blev vackert väder skulle vi göra vår topptur.

De tre stora
Det kändes helt naturligt att vi skulle gå med riktigt lätt packning, både på grund av Jakobs ålder och mina egna intressen för att vandra fjäderlätt. Och grunden för en lätt packning är att få ned vikten på de tre stora; bära, skydd, sova. Så under vintern sydde jag en ultralätt ryggsäck av lite mindre kaliber än min egen på 600 gram till Jakob. Vikten på hans säck landade på 225 gram plus midjebälte/midjeväska på 135 gram. Den rymmer ungefär 50 liter.
Jakobs ryggsäck
En lätt och varm sovsäck inhandlades. Baktanken var att jag själv och andra familjemedlemmar också skulle kunna använda samma säck i andra sammanhang. För sommarvandringar i fjällen vill jag ha en sovsäck som klarar ungefär noll grader. Valet föll på en Marmot Hydrogen som vägde 685 gram. Själv skulle jag använda min egen hemmasydda dunquilt på 600 gram. Som liggunderlag och ryggplatta i ryggsäckarna valde vi båda ett Jysk cellplastunderlag på 150 gram och varsitt Thermarest 120 cm på 525-600 gram beroende på tjocklek.


Sovsäck Marmot Hydrogen 685 gram. I bakgrunden hemsydd quilt 600 gram


Den tredje tunga delen av packningen var det hemmasydda tarptältet på 525 gram. Detta kompletterades med varsitt mygginnertält på 200 gram vardera. Detta är förmodligen ett skydd som är lite väl spartanskt för de flesta barnfamiljer. Nu är Jakob en tålig kille och med sina 13 år tillhörde han inte spädbarnen, men den allmänna uppfattningen verkar vara att man med barn bör satsa lite mer på ett skydd. Att ha ett rum som skyddar runt om och där man kan mysa även när vädret är dåligt är värt att satsa på. Ett något större tält med ytter- och innertält rekommenderas därför för mindre barn. Ett utrymme där man kan krypa runt utan skor och varma kläder, mysa och kanske läsa en bok.

Hemmasytt tarptält 510 gram

Men det finns "riktiga" tält som inte behöver väga bly. För en vuxen och ett barn så väger Helsport Ringstind 2 inte mer än 1600 gram. Är man två vuxna och ett barn räcker ett trepersoners tält bra. Nallo 3 väger 2 400 gram, Nallo 4 väger 2 800 gram, för att ta några exempel. För två vuxna och två barn kan man tänka sig ett trepersoners tält plus ett lätt tarptält där någon av de vuxna sover medan man äter och umgås i det större tältet.


Tarptältet redo för ryggsäcken
Personlig utrustning
Min tanke var att Jakob skulle bära sin egen personliga utrustning, jag skulle bära min plus allt gemensamt som tält, säkerhetsutrustning och matlagningsgrejor.

Detta innebar att i Jakobs ryggsäck fanns förutom liggunderlag och sovsäck också ett regnställ. Detta var ett lätt och billigt Packaway som inhandlades från ITAB för cirka 600 kronor. Regnstället var också lagom stort för min fru vilket gjorde det till mindre av en engångskostnad. Regnskyddet kompletterades sedan med ett paraply.

Till detta kom sedan en fleecetröja, dunväst, mössa, vantar, fiberpälssockar för läger och sömn samt ett par vattentäta strumpor av märket Sealskinz att användas vid kallt och blött väder. En kåsa, sked och en matskål på 17 gram kompletterade utrustningen. Packningens basvikt, det som Jakob bar hela tiden, blev 4,5-5 kg.


Jakobs ätgrejor; summa 72 gram

På kroppen hade både Jakob och jag en tunn, kortärmad skjorta i helsyntet, vindblus, keps, tunna syntetbyxor, tunna nylonstrumpor och vattensportskor av mesh-typ. Vi gick båda med stavar och mina användes också som tältstänger.


Med meshskor i snö på väg ned från Pyramidpasset. Inte så kallt som man tror.

Äta måste man också
Det som saknades nu var mat. Första tanken var att Jakob skulle bära sin egen mat. Detta hade adderat ungefär fyra-fem kilo och hade säkert inte varit omöjligt på något sätt. En elegantare lösning visade sig dock vara att vi delade upp maten oss emellan så att packningens totaltvikt (basvikt plus mat och bränsle) skulle bli samma procentandel av våra respektive kroppsvikter. Syftet med detta var att det s a s skulle vara lika ansträngande för oss båda.

Detta innebar att Jakobs säck vid starten i Nikkaluokta vägde 8 kg och min vägde 14 kg. Ganska hyfsat för en vecka i tält i ett av Sveriges mest alpina områden. När vi återvände och hade ätit upp all mat vägde Jakobs rygga således 4,5-5 kg och min vägde ungefär 7 kg.

Vad kostar detta då?
Nästa fråga är då: Blir det inte hemskt dyrt med lättpackning för hela familjen. Nja och kanske. Som vi skrivit om här på Fjäderlätt går det ofta att köpa riktigt lätt utrustning förvånansvärt billigt. Men om jag ser på Jakobs utrustning för en sommartur så såg kostnaderna ut så här:

Midjeväskan som ryggsäcken "står" på. Fungerar bra som avbärarbälte.
Byxor av tunn syntet hade han redan. Syntetskjorta och keps likaså. En vindblus köptes på utförsäljning för drygt 200 kr. Den passar även mamma. Vattensportskorna av mesh använde han varje dag till skolan, så de var ingen nämnvärd extra utgift. Tunna nylonstrumpor kostar inte mycket. Det ganska lätta regnstället från ITAB kostade mindre än 600 kronor. Passade även mamma. Liggunderlaget från Jysk gick på 39 spänn. Mugg och sked för under en tjuga. Tallriken följde med en fryst soppa från Felix.

Fleecetröja hade han, dunväst lånade han av mamma, mössa och vantar hade han. En lätt ryggsäck hade jag redan sytt, avsedd att kunna användas både av Jakob och mig mig själv. För den som inte syr själv kan redan befintliga dagsturssäckar eller skolryggsäckar fungera hyfsat för barnen. Men ultralätta ryggsäckar är inte heller våldsamt dyra.

Den dyraste utrustningsdetaljen för Jakob var en bra och lätt dunsäck från Marmot som kostade nästan 2 500 kronor. Men den kan han och övriga familjemedlemmar säkert ha i 15 år. Själv använder jag den på turer där han inte är med och min quilt är för kall. Den tyngsta investeringen för en barnfamilj är alltså en riktigt bra och lätt sovsäck, men denna håller å andra sidan mycket, mycket länge. Men här kan man välja ett något tyngre och något billigare alternativ, åtminstone till något av barnen eller de vuxna om man är många. Om man varit konsekvent med lätta prylar för den övriga utrustningen så har man utrymme för detta. Är man friluftsintresserad så har man kanske en del prylar man kan använda och pussla med.
Godispaus på toppen av Pyramidpasset, mellan Unna Räitavagge och Kaskasavagge

Eftersom Kebnekaise är ett väl trafikerat område och det ligger stugor med 1-2 mils mellanrum så kändes det hela också säkert. Vid behov fanns det hus och människor inom räckhåll vid Jakobs första fjällvandring. Allt var klart - i teorin.

Det är ingen tvekan om att packningens låga vikt bidrog till att Jakob fick en fin tur och trivdes med även en del tuffa passövergångar i de stenigare dalgångarna, fjärran från de mer upptrampade lederna. För att inte tala om hur skönt det var för pappa att slippa 25-30 kg över Pyramidpasset.

Diskutera

Nahanni I - labor pains

$
0
0
For some background on the South Nahanni River and my planned trip, see earlier blog posts.

Almost everyone that paddles the Nahanni flies in to various points along the river. Now, a packraft is constructed for packing and my gut feeling was that I wanted to walk in to the Moose Ponds, the source of the Nahanni, from the nearest road. Do not ask me why. To feel worthy of the Nahanni perhaps, or just because I am generally pigheaded and want to do things my way.

Anyway, 40-50 kilometers cross country above timberline is something I normally would be able to do in two long days of hiking. The reality proved to be a lot rougher than I had expected. On the other hand, I was not unprepared. This is Canada, it is big, it is wild and you are on your own. That's why I came.

By Jörgen Johansson 



The nearest road is a lone stretch of Yukon gravel going from the Ross River ferry to the border of the North West Territories (NWT) known as North Canol Rd. Some 200 kilometer up that road was my designated trail head. Simply a cross ón my map that seemed to offer a short stretch of hiking through the forest, a crossing of the MacMillan river and access to a pass leading across the watershed that forms the border between the Yukon and NWT, where the Moose Ponds are located.

On my map it like like most of this distance could be hiked above timberline. I could get hold of no source that could confirm or deny this. People simply did not do what I was planning to do.

My friends Elaine and Terry, that drove me up the N Canol Rd, had to abandon me along the road due to a bunch of construction workers tearing up a bridge. So I started my trip walking on the road. The load was far from ultralight; about 22-25 kilos in a hastily bought MEC Alpinelite 85 pack, replacing my intended ULA Ohm which turned out to be way to small. Something that I should have checked more thoroughly.
The first night was spent along the road, with the Itsi Range as backdrop. A nice evening turned into a rainy night and morning. My  trusty Gossamer Gear The One did prove to be the ideal tent for this trip, just as I had suspected.

The promised land did not look that promising when I took a 90 degree turn away from the road in a persistent drizzle. On the other side of the Macmillan River, you see a ridge sloping down to the right. Behind this ridge was  the valley leading to the Moose Ponds. My plan was to gain elevation, get above timberline and then cross the ridge into the valley this side of the snow covered peak on the horizon.

After a lunch under my tarp by the river, I inflated the packraft, donned my drysuit and PDF and strapped everything else to the foredeck. The crossing turned out to be quick and easy, however I was impressed by the force of the moving water. I had to paddle pretty vigourously while ferrying across the waterway. Before seeing the river I had entertained thoughts on swimming across it in drysuit and PDF, pushing my pack in front of me. One look convinced me that this river should be paddled instead.

My dreams of easy travel above timberline were pretty soon crushed by the brutal reality of the densely shrub-covered terrain. Reaching timberline proved to be something I attempted but gave up during that first afternoon. The last stretch of hillside below timberline was very steep and covered with creeping, bow shaped shrubs. I have battled with the likes of this in other areas and found it very taxing. So I decided that it was not worth the effort and choose to travel along the valley below timberline. The high shrubbery you see behind and around me turned out to become a faithful companion for almost the entire hike to the Moose Ponds.

It did not take me long to realise that any plans of reaching the Moose Ponds in two days had better be revised. I had already spent almost a full days hiking on the road before getting to my trailhead, which was not planned. I had brought food for 10 days, which meant two extra days rations, for the calculated time of the trip to my food cache at Rabbitkettle Lake, some 200 kilometers downstream from the Moose Ponds. This should be enough. If not I could handle a couple of days on small rations.

The first couple of days when I was beating my way through the bush, truly bush-whacking as the expressive expression is, it rained quite a bit. I had decided that I could leave my rain pants at home. The logic behind that being that I would only hike for two days out of three weeks; it also seemed likely that I could stay warm enough by hiking vigorously even without rain pants and if this did not work I could use my drysuit to avoid getting hypthermic.

It did not work. I was soon using my drysuit for hiking in order to stay warm enough in the chilly rain, as can be seen from the lunch stop at the photo above. The hood is a home-made addition of silnylon.  The Cuben tarp I had brought served me extremely well as a shelter while eating in the rain. Hiking in the drysuit kept me nice and dry for almost a day. After that the shrubs won out, and the dry suit started leaking in a number of places from the waist down. Still, it kept me dry enough to stay warm enough.

A couple of small lakes nested nicely in the valley I was travelling. One lacked a name, the other is called Portrait Lake. Paddling these in the packraft was a blessing mentally. Inflating the raft and all the stuff that goes with a lake crossing takes time and maybe the 1-2 kilometer long lakes did not really justify the time spent, but it certainly was soothing beyond words to be able to rest my legs and relax from the ceaseless battle with the chlorophyllia for a brief interval.

After the initial rainy days the weather improved and the beauty of the country I was moving through was easier to appreciate. Sitting in the packraft really gives you a good view and makes it easier to appreciate the marvelous wilderness that I was crossing.

When the weather improved the mosquitos woke. This particular area was pretty waterlogged as well, with water half way to my knees as a rule. I had to wear my rain jacket to keep the blood suckers at bay, which was not ideal since I sweated a lot. But the wind shirt that I prefer to a rain jacket on occasions like these had also been left at home in order to save weight.

After two nights in the brush country I came down to Ross River, a long ways upstream from the ferry crossing in the First Nation town with the same name. Seeing the gravel bars and imagining the ease with which I should be able to walk along the river bed made me a happy man. And a warm (25 C in my tent at 10 pm) evening was nice after the wet and chilly crossing from N Canol Rd. I spread most of my gear on the gravel to dry it out and enjoyed the splendor surrounding me.

It rained heavily off and on during the night and this continued all morning. I was brought abruptly out of my tent in the morning by splashing sounds coming from the river. Some animal crossing. Friend or...? Sticking my head out with my bear spray at hand a saw a young bull moose in mid river, looking quizzically at me. After a couple of minutes of this he seemed to catch a whiff which brough home to him that I was a dangerous sort and he turned around and dissappeared on the other side of the river.

Hiking along the river did not turn out to be the cake walk I had imagined. The gravel bars did exist, but were more often on the other side of the river, it seemed. Low temperatures, incessant rain, a leaking battered drysuit and wet foliage had me combating hypotermia all morning. At one time I had to pitch the tarp and put on my Cocoon pullover to regain some body heat while gobbling my chocolate/raisins/hazelnuts.

Fortunately, while pitching my lunch tarp, the rain stopped. The sun began peeking through the clouds and the rest of the afternoon it was nice and warm. After lunch I easily waded the Ross River and took a compass bearing for the Moose Ponds, now being less than 5 kilometers distant.

The sun shone, but the shrubbery was consistently uncooperative to the very last. Behind my head is the perfect cone of Mt Wilson. It had been a landmark off and on for a couple of days. At its base I knew that I would find the Moose Ponds, where the Nahanni began. Seeing it made use of the compass unnecessary, it was just a matter of climbing through the foliage, leaving the Ross River watershed that ends up in the Pacific for the Nahanni watershed which ends up in the Arctic Ocean.

The shrubs grew smaller and the ground became wetter, sucking at my shoes in the sunshine and not making the walking much easier. And pretty soon there was enough water for me to inflate my raft and strap my pack onto it.

At last, I was floating. Paddling across the Moose Ponds in the late afternoon I was a happy man, even if I once got lost in a maze of reed and had to backtrack in order to find the outlet that rapidly became a sizable and fast-moving stream. The end of the labor pains was at hand, the Nahanni was born. From now on everything would be downhill....

Search this site for "Nahanni" to find further blog posts.

Jämtlandsfjällen med Daniel, 9 år

$
0
0
PacklistaJämtlandstriangeln verkade vara ett bra ställe för Daniels första övernattningstur i fjällen. Tidigare har han bara gått på dagsturer i Abisko och tältat i hemmaskogarna. Nu var han intresserad av en fjällvandring med pappa. Vem var jag att säga nej?
Jag hade en enda, allt överskuggande målsättning: Att han efter turen skulle vilja göra något liknande igen. Hur det gick? Det får framtiden utvisa.
Av Jörgen Johansson

Laddad och med 4 kg på ryggen. Paraply så klart....

Så här såg packlistan ut. Alla vikter i gram.

Jörgen
ViktProdukt

170 Byxor mörkblå Pertex hemsydda
46 Keps grå Equilibrium hemsydd
100 Kortbyxor/kalsonger Smartwool
220 Skjorta kortärm ull Icebreaker Kent
740 Skor Salomon Tech Amphib stl 45
18 Strumpor nylon dam
158 Vindblus grön Marmot Ion XL
336 Gångstavar SOC
1788 På kroppen

606 Ryggsäck Golite Jam2 Large grå
54 Fingervantar Berghaus fleece
316 Jacka BMW Cocoon Hoody syntetfyllning
166 Långakalsonger Gekås
20 Packpåse kläder grön hemsydd
114 Sockar H-H stl 45
90 Strumpor Rocky Goretex vattentäta stl 11
274 Undertröja Fjällräven hoody
246 Regnbyxor Packaway XL
330 Paraply blått Pressbyrån
194 Regnjacka Haglöfs Oz Pullover XL
775 Tarptent Contrail inkl extra linor och 10 pinnar
25 Kudde Flexair uppblåsbar
124 Liggunderlag cellplast Jysk 180*50*1
286 Liggunderlag självuppblåsande BMW Torsolite
96 Packpåse 13 l Sea to Summit
884 Sovssäck WM Ultralite Super -9 C
66 Eldgrejor
42 Första förband, blodstoppare
30 Häfta stöd skavsår
40 Karta
35 Kompass
25 Reparation, lagning
84 Reservglasögon m solskydd och fodral
32 Sjukvårdsgrejor
55 Swiss Army Knife med sax, pincett
28 Visselpipa
6 Smörkniv
35 Smörburk
155 Gasbehållare Primus stor
48 Grythandtag Trangia
5 Grytlock pajform alu
155 Kokkärl Trangia alu stort
45 Kåsa plast
100 Kök Primus Micron
8 Spork Light my fire
20 Tändare Bic
26 Vindskydd titanfolie 22*82 cm
8 Kamerafodral bubbelplast och silvertape
120 Batteri videokamera Panasonic
10 Biljetter
10 Hudsalva Försvarets
180 Kamera Canon Ixus 90 IS utan fodral
102 Kamerastativ Joby m förlängda ben
100 Mobiltelefon Nokia fuktskyddad
25 Myggstift
35 Pengar, kort i plastpåse
25 Penna och dagbokspapper
25 Solskydd
10 Tandborste inkl skydd
6 Tandskydd i plastpåse
25 Toapapper 10 m i plastpåse
246 Bok
10 Kam
20 Tvålbit i plastpåse
35 Videokamera förvaringspåse silnylon grått
350 Videokamera Sony DCR-SR52

6982 Packningens basvikt
8770 Utrustningens basvikt

10982 Packningens totalvikt

14558 Utrustningens totalvikt

1788 På kroppen

4000 Mat och bränsle

79000 Kroppsvikt

14% Packningens totalvikt/kr
oppsvikt

Tarptent Contrail anses rymma något mer än en person. Stämde bra.

Daniel
ViktProdukt
270 Byxor syntet tunna
460 Gångstavar Axess 50
46 Keps REI
84 Shorts/kalsonger Daniel
90 Tunn skjorta gympa
544 Everest Kinunga jr stl 36
18 Strumpor nylon dam
162 Vindblus gympajacka
1674 På kroppen

135 Midjeväska/avbärarbälte
36 Flaska Platypus mjuk 2 l, utfyllnad midjeväska
780 Ryggsäck Everest 250 Travel
136 Dunväst WM Flash L
58 Tjocka strumpor
62 Fleecemössa
366 Fleecetröja
56 Fleecevantar
24 Halsduk fleecerör
68 Sealskinz Lite vattentäta
282 Långkalsonger/WCT-byxor
20 Packpåse kläder grön hemsydd
140 Undertröja långärm varm
330 Paraply blått Pressbyrån
166 Regnbyxor
168 Regnponcho Fjällräven PAKII
166 Liggunderlag MEC Evazote 150*50*0,5
72 Packpåse sovsäck vattentät 8 l
685 Sovsäck Marmot Hydrogen -2 C
45 Kåsa plast vanlig
8 Sked plast Sea to Summit
20 Tallrik plast Felix soppa
25 Tandborste

3848 Packningens basvikt
5522 Utrustningens basvikt

3848 Packningens totalvikt

5522 Utrustningens totalvikt

1674 På kroppen

0 Mat och bränsle
28000 Kroppsvikt
14% Packningens totalvikt/kroppsvikt


Packningens basvikt = allt man bär i ryggsäcken hela vandringen. Alltså exklusive mat och bränsle.
Utrustningens basvikt = packningens basvikt plus det man bär på kroppen.
Packningens totalvikt = packningens basvikt plus mat och bränsle vid start
Utrustningens totalvikt = utrustningens basvikt plus mat och bränsle vid start.

Många stora ryggsäckar mötte vi....

Med barn på vandring i Jämtland

$
0
0
Turer Nattåget till Enafors gick 23.45 från Stockholms Central. Det var såklart något av en pers för min nioåring att vara ute och åka så sent på kvällen. Men vad gör man, det är de tågen som går till Jämtlandsfjällen och vi skulle till Storulvån för att göra en augustivandring under några dagar. Det var Daniels första tälttur i fjällen och förhoppningsvis skulle den ge mersmak.
Av Jörgen Johansson
Två nätter ute hade redan från början känts som ganska lagom. Jämtlandstriangeln med sina goda kommunikationer söderut och de tre fjällstationerna Storulvån, Sylarna och Blåhammaren som tillflyktsorter, om vädret och humöret skulle lägga sordin över turen kändes perfekt.

Längs lederna mellan stationerna finns också rastskydd utplace
rade och dessutom är landskapet flackt, med små nivåskillnader där leden går. Det finns alltså goda möjligheter att välja alternativa rutter eller att gina tvärs över fjället om vi skulle behöva förkorta turen. Perfekt läge, med andra ord.

Vår plan var att ligga ute och att inte nyttja fjällstationerna om det inte behövdes. Så blev också fallet, även om vi började turen med en fika på Storulvån, innan vi axlade packningarna och travade iväg längs de planktrottoarer som finns där leden mot Sylarna börjar.

Vi var ett antal vandrare av olika åldrar och konstellationer som kommit med tåget. Några pappor med döttrar i 11-12-årsåldern, några äldre par och tre tjejkompisar i 40-årsåldern som drog iväg upp genom björkskogen. Daniel och jag tog det ganska lugnt. Vi hade lätta packningar, han knappt 4 kg och jag cirka 11 kg, vilket var skönt i de första uppförsbackarna innan vi nådde kalfjället.

Det var lite mulet och småkyligt och Daniel drog genast på sig fleecevantarna som sedan stannade på resten av dagen. Annars gick vi i "lättpackaruniformen" bestående av tunna syntetbyxor, gympdojor, undertröja och vindblus. Kepsen högst upp var naturligtvis en viktig beståndsdel som vid raster förstärktes med varmare mössor.

Så småningom började vi skymta Sylarna i fjärran. Även om topparna var insvepta i moln så var det bra att ha ett synbart mål för dagens vandring. Daniel tyckte till en början att det såg väldigt nära ut, men när timmarna gick och avståndet tycktes oförändrat så lärde han sig att fjäll är stora.
 


Vi stannade med jämna mellanrum och stuvade i oss mjölkchoklad och russin. Hasselnötter är Daniel inte särskilt förtjust i, så de fick pappa äta själv. Vid lunch blev det dags att värma vatten till potatismospulvret. Till detta serverades hemtorkade strimlor av lövbiff. Även om Daniel brukar gilla lövbiff hemma så var detta inte något som föll honom på läppen. Men potatismoset slank begärligt ned.

Daniel var duktig på att gå med sin fyrakilosrygga, men klagade trots det en del och tyckte att vi skulle gå mindre och rasta mer. Sagt och gjort, resten av turen gick vi kanske 35-40 minuter per timma och rastade resten. Pappa satt eller låg och mös på liggunderlaget under dessa raster medan Daniel sprang omkring på ett sätt som inte direkt gav intryck av att han var uttröttad. Han utforskade diverse skrymslen och vrår, letade efter den perfekta "kranen", där vattnet föll fritt ned i kåsan, i varje bäck. Vandringsstavarna tjänstgjorde ofta som svärd med vilka han besegrade diverse orcher och andra ondskefulla kreatur som befolkade hans fantasi.


Första kvällen
När vi i kvällningen nådde bron över Enan, några kilometer från Sylarnas fjällstation, så letade vi upp en plan och fin lägerplats längs ån. Besöka fjällstationen fick vi göra någon annan gång. Daniel var inte trakterad av de tre kilometrarna som vi dessutom skulle tvingas gå tillbaka också. Här vid bron fanns nämligen leden till Blåhammaren, som vi skulle följa dagen efter.

Det blev ganska många timmars sen eftermiddag och kväll som vi tillbringade vid Enan. Vi ägnade oss en del åt högläsning ur den medhavda boken och mellan varven utforskade Daniel omgivningarna medan pappa inte gjorde något särskilt. När vi satt stilla utanför tältet var det ganska skönt att värma underkroppen i sovsäcken, eftersom det inte var någon direkt värme.

Vinden var dock måttlig och det klarnade så småningom upp, så att man kunde se högsta Syltopparna innan solen gick ned i väster och det blev augustiskumt runt vårt tält. Då kröp vi in i tältet och gjorde oss klara för natten. Daniel tyckte inte riktigt om att krypa ned helt i sovsäcken utan låg med huvudet ute. Han hade förstås en tjock fleecemössa på sig och jag tipsade om att han skulle krypa ned helt om han frös framåt natten.

På spåret - och i glesbygd
När morgonen kom och jag kröp ut ur tarptältet för att tömma blåsan så stod jag öga mot öga med en ren. Den titta lite nyfiket på mig från 10 meters håll, och flyttade sig sedan makligt.

Med lite utrustning att packa var morgonbestyren snart avklarade och vi kom iväg ganska snabbt. Det började med ett långt uppförslut och solen sken nu så att vi kunde ta av oss vindblusarna och gå i bara skjortorna. Åtminstone periodvis, innan något moln drev in framför solen. Vi pratade lite med andra vandrare som blev passerade av eller passerade oss, beroende på tempo och raster. Det var väldigt mycket folk längs leden. Jag räknade vid ett tillfälle till att 17 vandrare var synliga samtidigt i det flacka landskapet.

Lunchen intogs behagligt dåsande i solskenet i en håla med lä från den vind som annars var lite småkall. Det var tortellini som stod på menyn, en säker favoriträtt hos oss båda. Tyvärr hade pappa glömt att ta med salt, vilket inte gav den riktigt perfekta smaken. Men det hela slank ned i de tomma fjällmagarna ändå.

Daniel började nu tycka att det var lite jobbigt att gå så mycket, så när vi passerade Enkälens rastskydd så tog vi en av de genvägar som finns längs sträckan. Vi vek av på leden som går mot Ulvåtjärnstugan och beslöt alltså att även Blåhammarens trerättersmiddag var något som kunde vänta till en annan gång. Sannolikt en större förlust för pappa än för Daniel...

När vi hade lämnat den stora leden till Blåhammaren var vi helt plötsligt ganska ensamma på fjället och gick över ett väldigt platt myrlandskap. Daniel hoppade mellan plankorna på leden för att undvika att blöta ned fötterna och tyckte det var lite fusk att pappas skor hade tjockare sulorn och därmed skyddade bättre mot läckage. Vi gick båda i gympaskor/meshskor, men dagens första blöta försökte Daniel undvika i det längsta. Det gick ganska bra att gå torrskodd med det väder vi hade.


När vi passerat Ulvåtjärnen slog vi läger på en hylla ovanför ån i det vackra landskapet några hundra meter från rastskyddet. Där fanns ett annat tält ganska nära det vadställe som fanns. Det var ett byggt vadställe. En konsekvens verkade det, av när försöken att hålla bron vid liv hade visat sig fruktlösa. Vadstället bestod av ett tiotal betongsbalkar som låg på botten av bäcken med något stegs mellanrum. Gick man på dem så steg vattnet bara upp till smalbenen. Men vi behövde aldrig vada där, eftersom vi skulle gå till Storulvån dagen därpå och vadstället låg där leden från Blåhammaren anslöt.

Vi hade en solig och skön kväll då vi åt våra nudlar och läste ut den medhavda högläsningsboken. Jag tog en promenad över vadstället upp till det nya rastskyddet. Nya, därför att den gamla stugan med snedtak försvunnit sedan jag senast var där. Det var för 30 år sedan, då en kompis och jag tillbringat en sportlovsnatt där, på väg från Blåhammaren. Grunden av den gamla stugan fanns kvar.

Jag vandrade tillbaka till tältet medan jag funderade över hur snabbt 30 år kan gå. Kvällshimlen var klar och Snasahögarna en vacker fond när skuggorna blev alltmer släpande i takt med att solen gick i sin sluttande bana mot väster.,

Morgon mellan fjällen
Vi vaknade till en strålande morgon och tuggade i oss müsli och Digestives utanför tältet. Pappa hade inte bara glömt salt utan också kaffe, vilket inte bekymrade Daniel så mycket. Jag försökte trösta mig med att det säkert var nyttigt med avgiftning efter så många år av kaffemissbruk och gladde mig åt att abstinensbesvären inte var särskilt handikappande.


Vid det här laget visste vi att de sex kilometer som återstod till Storulvån skulle inte borde ta mer än 3 timmar att gå. Vi skulle komma fram i god tid för att duscha och äta söndagsmiddag på fjällstationen innan bussen till nattåget stod klar för avfärd. Vid en lång rast i solskenet på väg ned genom den tätnande vegetationen passerades vi av en skolklass med tonåringar. En del sprang och andra gick i en improviserad tävling på väg mot fjällstationen. En del packningar som dessa ungdomar bar var verkligen stora. Jag skulle vilja säga gigantiska. Man kunde bara hoppas att de inte var lika tunga som de såg ut. Och att dessa bördor inte för all framtid skulle avskräcka dem från allt vad fjällvandringar heter.

Det var alldeles lagom att äta lunch i solen några hundra meter från fjällstationen, medan solen blänkte i Storulvån och fjällstationens får gick och betade i buskarna. Det blev potatismos idag också, men vi hade redan bestämt att vi skulle äta en ordentlig måltid i restaurangen några timmar senare, så att vi var välmatade innan vi steg på tåget.



Under eftermiddagen strosade vi runt, försökte hitta renen Leif för ett foto och tittade på Plupp-stigen som var snitslad alldeles utanför fjällstationen. Sedan läste vi lite om aktiviteter som förekommit på Storulvån under sommaren. Tydligen hade vi missat ett "riddarläger" som hållits där, till Daniels stora besvikelse.

"Pappa, vi kan väl åka tillbaka till Storulvån nästa sommar".

Här kan du läsa om vilken utrustning vi hade.
Här finns en länk till Utsidans diskussionsforum.

Brooks Range Vacation I - The Beginning

$
0
0
Finally there. Landed and supporting my pack beside the plane, exchanging a few last words with Dirk Nickisch of Coyote Air.

By Jörgen Johansson



The clouds were hanging low over Joe Creek, a place that is about as distant from everywhere as anyplace can be, even in Alaska. Some ten kilometers east the Yukon border would meet, going straight north up to the Arctic Ocean. Some 180 kilometers in the same direction I would find the nearest community, the roadless native village of Old Crow. Its counterpart in Alaska would be Arctic Village, also without access by road, some 200 kilometers southwest of Joe Creek. In fact the only road in this part of the world was where I was going, the Dalton Highway along the oil pipeline running straight through Alaska from the Arctic Ocean.

The Beaver plane that had flown me for a couple of hours from Coldfoot on the Dalton Highway to west had left about five minutes before. I had now emptied my entire pack. The gear and the food for 16 days were scattered among the tussocks. Everything was there, with one exception, as I had suspected. The GPS was missing.

There are times when I feel that I know what I am doing when travelling wild country on my own. This was not one of those times.

People that know me also know that I am not patient with little things that go wrong. I am much to prone to fly off the handle and use language my kids should never have been exposed to if I had been a responsible father. Luckily enough, I am much better at handling major fuck-ups. I was grateful for that now.

It was 2 pm and my belly told me that lunch was overdue. While heating water on my canister stove I sat-phoned Danielle at Coyote Air in Coldfoot. Before all of the Idahoan mashed potatoes had joined some sausage in my stomach we had decided that the GPS from my stash in Coldfoot should be put into the bear proof containers with food that they were transporting to the Marsh Fork of the Canning River.  I would pick it up in two weeks.


As my grizzled countenance signals, I am not brought up with a GPS. I am not GPS dependent. Compass and map have always been my tools and the GPS a very handy addition that simplifies many things while hiking.

But this was the first time that I had planned my route almost entirely on a PC software and transferred waypoints to my handheld. Something that felt pretty nice in a country like Brooks Range. So this time I had relied way more on the GPS than ever before.

My plan was to walk across one of the last great wildernesses on earth; the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The ANWR is 80 000 square kilometers of protected land, sitting on top of Brooks Range, stretching from the Yukon border to the Dalton Highway, a k a "The Road", in the west. This makes the ANWR quite a bit bigger than Ireland and slightly smaller than Austria.

There are no roads, trails, bridges or people living permanently in the ANWR. Almost all mountains are nameless and unclimbed. Only the major rivers, flowing either south to the mighty Yukon River and on to the Pacific or north to the Arctic Ocean, have names. To quote Robert Service: "There's a land where the mountains are nameless, And the rivers all run God knows where".

This walk across the ANWR would be around 500 kilometers on the groundn and my plan indicated that I could do it in 25 days, if everything went without a hitch. I brought food for 30 days, 14 days of which would be shipped to my halfway cache. I did not expect everything to go without a hitch, but I had hoped to remain hitch-less slightly more than five minutes.


I only knew of five people who had travelled the entire lenght of the Brooks Range, from the Yukon border to the Bering Strait. As far as I knew most of them had walked about twice as far as I intended and then paddled the Noatak River to the sea. These people are in chronological order: Dick Griffith, Roman Dial, Buck Nelson, Andrew Skurka and Kristin Gates.

There are probably more people that have done this long hike and others that have walked the ANWR like I intended, but the fact remains: This is a good place to be if you like to be on your own. And I love to be on my own in wild country. This of course means that some people feel that therapy is long overdue for me. That does not worry me. I have my own therapy: Being on my own in wild country.

The trips of Buck Nelson and Andrew Skurka are the ones that are most well documented and those guys also helped me with various tips during my planning. Andrew has all his overnight camp coordinates on his web page (www.andrewskurka.com) and Buck also has a number of coordinates at his (www.bucktracks.com) plus his very inspiring film Alone Across Alaska that I have watched any number of times.

Their routes are fairly similar though and so would mine be, for a simple reason. To hike through this area as smoothly as possible you have to stay close to the continental divide between the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific. This is because that is where the rivers, no matter which direction they run, are at their smallest. And going for 500 kilometers through Alaska means you have to cross a lot of rivers. The smaller they are the easier it is, and less dangerous as well. I did not worry about bears, but I thought that river crossings would be the biggest danger. It turned out to be wrong, but that I did not know yet.

Fortunately neither Andrew nor Buck has chosen to give away all their secrets or show their routes in detail, more or less for the same reasons. To quote Andrew: "I didn’t want to take away from someone’s fun by making it easy to replicate my route".





I am very grateful for them holding their cards close to the chest and I hope it will be a long time before you can buy a detailed guide of every step that can be taken or should be taken when travelling the Brooks Range. In my mind there has to be some corners of our planet that are not smothered with words and crushed beneath well-meaning advice, allowing some of the misfits among us to explore and experience the unknown.


And now it seemed that without my GPS, the beginning of this trip would be a bit more of an exploration and experience than I had intended. No matter, this was not a mishap of the magnitude that could motivate me do abandon the whole walk or, being a cheap-skate, accept the cost of having the GPS flown out separately to me.

The first thing was to try and clear my mind of any regrets or doubts. I had my compass, I had my map and I had 40 years of experience using them in more or less wild country. That would be fine. Everything would be fine, that is what I had to tell myself. It would be an interesting experience.

However, I could not honestly say that I was used to maps running to the scale 1:250 000. In the Swedish mountains back home, the maps are usually 1:100 000, which gives quite a bit more detail without becoming unwieldy. There are maps of the Brooks Range with the scale 1:62 500, but now we are getting to the unwieldy bit. It is an awful lot of paper to carry around if you want them to cover a trip of 500 kilometers.

So I had compromised. I had planned my route on the GPS, loaded it down with tons of waypoints and then printed A4-size sheets of the area closest to the route in 250 K maps from the USGS, since my Garmin software did not allow printing. Some of the trickier passes I had printed from 62,5 K maps. Fortunately I had chosen to print all of this, not on ordinary paper, but on a very durable polymer paper called Nevertear. Something for which I now was truly grateful. And would be even more grateful.


The peaks bordering the valley around Joe Creek kept their distance, but they certainly were steep and sharp enough to impress. I am not used to limestone mountains and their exciting shapes, alternating between sharks teeth and turreted towers that could be taken from The Lord of the Rings. I would get used to these mountains during the month that followed, but never tired of them. Instead I fell in love with them.

I had seen films from Joe Creek and been amazed, but now I could see the real thing. The strangest occurence by far is a row of very steep and sharp pinnacles connected into pallisades in front of the much higher mountains. I did not encounter anything similar anywhere else along my route. These palisades seemed like some sort of first defense, intended to keep intruders away from the real mountains and their secrets.

I had no intention of challenging any of these fortifications. And I know what secrets lay behind the mountains. Nothing exciting really, just more mountains. My route lay due west along Joe Creek for a day or so. After an almost unnoticeable watershed I would gain access to a side creek that could to take me out of that drainage and let me pass over to the Kongakut river in another couple of days or so. In fact I would be hopping from one drainage to another all the way to The Road.

No gear, no GPS, nor maps nor anything else would be able to do this for me. There is only one way of walking 500 kilometers across any country, and that is by putting one foot in front of the other for as long as it takes.

So I was eager to get going. In fact, when starting out on a long trip like this I often have to temper my own feelings. One of which is awe. 500 kilometers of roadless wilderness! That is a long way, will I really be able to do this? What have I gotten myself into?

However,  my judgement tells me that it definetely is doable, particularly after having done similar distances before. But of course, you won't make it all this very afternoon. Because that is the other side of the pressure from a big task. If you should have any chance at all, you should get going as soon as possible and walk as fast as possible. This feeling also has to be tempered.

Walking so fast that you are half falling, taking no breaks and swearing every time the terrain forces you to slow down has never worked for me. So I find that rational behaviour works best. I focus on the  facts. Besides, I'm on vacation, I want to have a good time and enjoy myself. I am not an athlete wanting to set speed records. I am not an adventurer looking for sponsors. I am not a masochist, wanting to punish myself. I am just a regular old guy on vacation and I have deliberately planned an enjoyable pace.

If I walk 17 kilometer every day according to the map, which of course will be more in the actual hilly and curvy real world, I will reach my food cache at the Marsh Fork of the Canning River in 14 days. That is 2 kilometer per hour for 8-9 hours of hiking. Should be doable. I know it is doable. And if not, I'll make it doable.

So I shouldered my re-packed pack with its 24 kilos or so, of which about 14 kilos were food and fuel, and tentatively pushed my lightweight mesh shoes into action among the alternating dry and soggy tussocks.

Now, Alaska tussocks are famous, or infamous if you want, and we have our share of tussocks in the Scandinavian mountains as well, so this was not new and I knew it was something to be managed. And also that this was only the beginning. Might as well get used to it.

These tussocks were not the giant kind. In fact that would have been preferable. Later I would encounter giant tussocks, and they often give you the opportunity to walk around/between them which is easier than many other options. I found the giants easier to negotiate than the smaller ones that I usually ran into. Like now along Joe Creek.

The clouds were still hanging low, the air was muggy and there was not much wind. This made my progress sweaty and the mosquitous loved this, They were out in force to great me. No problem, that's the name of the game. I put on some repellent on my hands and donned a head net, this saviour of sanity in northern summers. My thin pants and wind shirt were bug proof.

I travelled some 7,5 kilometers in the three hours that remained of the day. Pretty good with a fully loaded pack and quite a bit of tussocks, I thought. Not much changes in elevation of course, I just followed the valley of Joe Creek. I just had to keep doing this for four weeks and I would see the pipline along Dalton Highway shining in the distance.

Around 7 pm I usually start looking for a campsite, even if there is daylight all night, as is the case north of the Arctic Circle in July. What I want for camp, minimally, is a flat spot big enough for my tent and water for drinking and cooking.

This minimum turned out to be hard to find this night. I eventually cooked and ate my standard evening noodles with some sausage down by the creek, among the tussocks and then retreated up-hill where the distance between the tussocks increased enough for me to pitch my Trailstar tent. I  brought water for breakfast with me.

The wind was coming from the east, just as I had, so I pitched my tent with the opening towards the opposite direction. As is not unusual, it did not take long for black clouds to appear in the west, the wind turned and a rain-storm rushed in. It lasted for 15-20 minutes and lashed at the tent, the rain unloading like a truckload of peas on my thin roof.

The Trailstar does not have an entrance zipper. It can be pitched very low in poor weather, but I had the regular pitch with a triangular funnel as entrance and exit, as can be seen from one of the photos above. This was the first serious test of my tent and I was ready for action in my rain gear, should some pegs come out from the wind blowing straight into the opening.

After a while I went out into the wind and the downpour to check the pegs, but I need not have worried, everything was ship-shape. After a while the rain and wind died down and I could relax. The rain did continue for most of the night, but that sound is one of my favourite lullabyes.

Before shutting myself into the sleeping bag for some shut-eye, I used the satellite phone to call my wife and tell her that everything was fine, with the slight exception of the GPS being in Coldfoot, of course. We decided that she would send my travel plans to Coyote Air. It would make it possible for them to deliver the GPS if they happened to have flights in the vicinity of my planned route.

Tomorrow would be the real beginning, were I would start learning what was on the map and what wasn't, which hues of green that signalled easy hiking and which didn't and all the other things that makes for a smooth ride. It was all up to me now. That is the way I like it. That is why I am here, miles upon miles from everyone and everything. Tomorrow. Today could have been worse.

Search for "Brooks Range" on this site to find further blog posts.

Weight on your feet

$
0
0
In several books, including the soon to be published Smarter Backpacking, I have written that it is five times as energy consuming to carry something on your feet, compared to carry it on your back. This makes some people irritated, so I have collected some of the scientific articles that support this rule of thumb. Read and judge for yourself.

By Jörgen Johansson

I have written the following in Smarter Backpacking:
Carrying a weight on your feet takes five times more energy than carrying the same weight on your back. Thus, finding the lightest footwear that does the job has top priority for me.
...
Climbers preparing for the first ascent of Mount Everest in 1953 formulated a rule of thumb; one pound on your feet equals five pounds on your back. In other words, to move something attached to your feet requires five times the amount of energy that it takes to transport the same weight on your back. Since then quite a bit of research supports this rule of thumb. Depending on circumstances such as speed,slope and weight carried, there is of course variation.

All this feels intuitively right to me. Anyone who has walked with mud caked to their feet knows how heavy the strides become. For exercise purpose weight cuffs for wrists and ankles are sold. If they did not increase the strain on the body they would have no place.

My sources
I read my first American backpacking books in the 70's. A fact-filled bible was The Complete Walker by Colin Fletcher. In the third edition (1983) I could read (p 53):
Weigth is even more important on the feet than on the back. In his classic 1906 book, Camping and Woodcraft, Horace Kephart calcculated the results of wearing boots just one pount too heavy: "In ten miles, there are 21, 120 average paces. At one extra pound to the pace, the boots make you lift, in a ten-mile tramp, over ten tons more foot gear". In 1953 the successful Mount Everest expedition came to the conclusion that in terms of physical effort one pound on the feet is equivalent to five pounds on the back. A consensus of informed opinion now seems to support that assesment.

You will find the same wording in the latest version, The Complete Walker IV (2002) written by Fletcher and Chip Rawlins.

Boots on Coast2Coast Sweden. You send them home and buy running shoes
 What could be be called the modern day standard bible of backpacking is The Backpacker's Handbook by Chris Townsend. Chris is one of the worlds most experienced long distance hikers, as well as a journalist that has tested hiking gear for decades. In the second and third editions (2005) of his book you can read (p. 39):

That lighter footwear is less tiring seems indisputable. The general estimate is that every pound on your feet equals 5 pounds on your back. If that's correct, and it certainly feels like it, then wearing 2-pound rather than 4-pound boots is like removing 10 pounds from your pack.

By the same author we also have The Advanced Backpacker (2001) in which Chris writes (s. 113-114):
The often quoted adage that a pound on your feet equals five on your back is true in its overall implications, even if the specific figures aren't necessarily accurate. I discovered that on the Pacific Crest Trail when I ended up carrying my 5-pound boots and hiking in my 17-ounce running shoes. Although I could feel the addition to my load, the boots were less tiring to carry on my back than to wear on my feet.
Crocs are not my choice of footwear for long distance hiking, but I would chose them before heavy boots


Scientific base
So far we see that the rule of thumb seems to be well established in backpacking literature. With a bit of help I have also managed to find a number of scientific articles on this subject. Not surprisingly these articles show a more varied picture than the rule of thumb. Otherwise it would not be a rule of thumb.

Below I have made short summaries of a number of these articles.

The energy cost and heart-rate response of trained and untrained subjects walking and running in shoes and boots by Bruce H Jones, Michael M. Toner, William L. Daniels och Joseph J. Knapik. US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts, USA. Publicerad i Ergonomics1984, vol. 27, No.8, 805-902.

In the introduction the authors describe how differen studies have looked at energy cost for walking and running, but that few studies have taken the weight of the footwear into account. Examples of such studies are Catlin and Dresendorfer (1979), who have found that a weight difference of 350 grams (12 oz) on footwear increases energy consumption with 3.3%. Soule and Goldman (1969) have found that the energy cost is about 5 times greater if you carry a weight on your feet compared to carry it on your torso.


The authors of the current study mean that it can be expected that even small increases in weight on the feet should have considerable impact on the energy expenditure for both walking and running. Many professions like fire man, lumberjack, miner and soldier use heavy footwear and the job demands that you move about in these. But no studies have so far been made where energy cost for different weights of footwear ad different speeds That is the purpose of the current study.


Research method
Fourteen men, six trained and eight untrained was part of the experiment. There maximum oxygen uptake was measured using  a standardised method using Douglas bags. After this the energy cost was compared between walking and running in boths shoes and heavy boots. Finally the energy cost for running in shoes plus weights was measured. Running shoes and army boots were used. The average weight of the shoes was 616 grams, that of the boots was 1776 grams. The men walked on a treadmill with three different speeds; 4, 5,6 and 7,3 kilometers/hours.


The third part of the test was comparing the running shoes with boots by adding weights around the ankles so that the weight compared to that of the boots.


Results
The energy cost of wearing boots was significantly higher at all speeds except the lowest (4 km/h). The increase in oxygen uptake that could be attributed to wearing of boots compared to shoes varied from 5,9% to 10,2%, with an average of 8% in spite of the fact that the weight added by the boots was only 1,4% of the persons body weight.


The difference in running in shoes only compared to shoes plus ankle weights varied between 5,0-6,3%. Comparing shoes with weights and boots, 48-70% of the difference was due to the weight, leaving at least 30% unaccounted for. The hypthesis if the authors was that this unexplained extra energy cost due to wearing boots was because of biomechanical limitations like stiff soles and restricting uppers.


The conclusion was that the study supported the calculations from Soule and Goldman (1969) about energy cost for wearing a weight on your feet was 4,7-6,3 (depending on speed) times as big as carrying the same weight on your torso. This means that for trained and untrained persons walking and running i boots mean a considerable increase in energy expenditure compared to the same activities in running shoes.

Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots by S. J. Legg and A. Mahanty, Army Personnel Research Establishment, Farnborugh, Hants, England. Publicerad i Ergonomics, 1986. Vol. 29, No. 3.
(This study has been frequently quoted in backpacking literature.) In the introduction the authors says that is well known that the weight of footwear can affect the energy cost for walking and running. References given are Hettinger och Miller (1958) and Strydom et al (1968). There is also a reference to Catlin and Dressendorfer (1979) having made studies of marathon runners on treadmills that show a 0,9% increase in energy expenditure for every 100 gram increase in shoe weight.


There is also a reference to the study refererred above by Jones et al (1984) where the result was a 0,7% increase for every 100 gram increase in shoe weight, this being the same as Martin (1984) has shown. Comparable results for women was 1,0% according to Jones et al (1986).
All these studies had been made without the test persons carrying any other weight except that on their feet. Normally, says Legg and Mahanty, use of heavy footwear is connected to carrying a pack. The purpose of their study was to study what increasing the weight of the footwear meant energy expenditure while backpacking.


Research method
Five young men took part of the test. Their maximum oxygen uptake was measured according to Taylor et al (1955) and this was then the base line for the test:


- No pack, military boots
- Pack and military boots. Pack weighing 35% of body weight (average 24,9 kilograms)
- Pack and military boots with weights. 30% of body weight was carried in the pack and the difference up to 35% was a lead weight taped to the boot upper, near the ankle.


Results
Carrying 5% of the body weight on the boots was significantly more strenous than carrying it on the back. It was calculated that a 100 gram extra on the shoes meant an increase in energy cost by 0,96%, meaning it was 6,4 times more energy consuming carrying this weight on the feet than in the pack.


It is concluded that the results are well in line with other studies (0,7-1,0% increase in energy cost per 100 grams in shoe weight). The final conclusion is that the therory of the relation between shoe weight and energy cost, earlier developed for walking and running without a pack can be expanded to include walking with a pack.

Physiological strain due to load carrying in heavy footwear av M. Holejwin, R. Heus och L. J. A. Wammes TNO Institute for Perception, Termal Physilogy Research Group, Soesterberg, Nederländerna publicerad i European Journal of Applied Physiology 1992 65:129-134.
In the introduction to this study the authors says that it is well known that walking with shoes leads to a 0,7-1,0% increase in energy cost per 100 gram weight added. Other studies are referred to, some of the above as well. However, most studies have been made with men, except Jones et al (1986), who found a value of 1,0% for women.


The authors mean that in order to do a just comparison both men and women should be tested in the same study. A theory is that women due to shorter legs have a higher frequency while walking than men an tend to increase their hiking speed by increasing the frequency rather than the lenght of the stride. This would in turn mean a comparatively higher energy cost for women if the shoes get heavier.


This and other question marks concerning the differences between men and women is the basis of the current study.


Research method
Five men and five women were tested. They were all physically active but did not take part of any formal training program. The maximum oxygen uptake was measured in order to compensate for individual differences. Everbody then walked on a horisontal treadmill for six minutes at the different speeds of 4, 5,25 and 6,5 kilometers per hour.This was done with the following loads:


- Barefoot without pack
- With either military boots or waist belt (12 kilograms)
- With both military boots and waist belt


The average weight for the boots worn by the women was 2,045 kilos/pair and by the men 2.370 kilos/pair.


Results
It was found that the weight of the footwear increased energy cost with 1,9-4,7 times compared to the same body weight, dependent on sex and speed. The lowest value was for women at 4 km/h, the highest for men at 6,5 km/h. It is also concluded that this is in agreement with earlier studies involving only men.
The increased energy cost is explained by the fact that if you walk at 6,5 km/h every foot has to be raised approximately 0,3 meters and then accelarated to twice the average body speed before the foot is slowed down to zero. It is also referred to Jones et al (1984) who claims that 30% of the increased energy expenditure is explained by stiff soles and limiting uppers. The authors also add that energy expenditure during backpacking is also influences by factors such as clothing, slope and surface. Pandolf et al (1977) has shown an equation including these effects which show that they lead to a considerable increase in energy cost.

My own summaries and conclusions
A common measurement in the studies is that each addition of 100 grams to your feet increased the energy cost with 0,7-1,0%. Personally I find this measurement hard to relate to. What does it all mean in real life?
Getting wet feet does not automatically mean getting cold feet


Obviously the scientists also feel a need to communicate their results in a more practical way. All three papers summarized above do the same maths, they relate the increase in energy cost to carried weight. These are the results from the three articles:
- 4,7-6,3 times
- 6,4 times
- 1,9-4,7 times

One of the articles show that no increase in energy cost was seen at the lowest speed, 4, 0 km/h. However it was found at higher speeds. This is reported but the authors do not let this result influence their overall conclusion, which is that earlier findings of it being 4,7-6,3 times as energy consuming to carry something on your feet compared to carrying it on your back.

Since the scientist themselves do not let this difference at 4,0 km/h influence their conclusions that is good enough for me.

How exact is "five times as heavy"?

Looking at the above the question that should be asked is if we should revise our rule of thumb and instead say that it is 4,7 or 1,9 times more energy consuming to carry something on your feet than on your back.
Well, maybe. It can of course be stated that "it depends" on speed, slope, surface and other things that are pretty obvious to a hiker. So for a hike you do on a well graded trail, the decimal should probably end up in a different place than when you hike on a road or cross country on talus. 

And I have found no newer research that contradicts these findings. This is where science stands today.
None of the above scientists have made any great attempt to establish any other rule of thumb. By rule of thumb I mean some sort of average that could be applied in most situations and offer guidance without being totally misleading. I have no personal commitment to "5 times". I certainly did not make it up, nor did Colin Fletcher or Chris Townsend. What I find interesting is to reach as wide an audience as possible with this important piece of information. It certainly has a, scientifically proven, majore impact on how strenous your hike will be.

For some people this rule of thumb, or maybe any indication that weight on your feet is important, very controversial and I have in fact been accused of spreading myths by repeating this rule and publishing the studies above in Swedish last year. My answer was and is; you have seen my scientific articles supporting what I say, where are your studies contradicting these findings and this rule of thumb? I am still waiting.

My shoes and socks are always ready to ford. Brooks Range, Alaska
One might speculate on why this question is, or has been, loaded. My guess is that it is a mixture of conservatism (everybody KNOWS that you need heavy shoes while you hike) and commercial interests (where should the heavy shoe industry go if everyone hiked in running shoes?). Note that heavy shoes usually means boots, but not always. Today you can find boots that are just as light as running shoes. But that is a different discussion.


So the main message is that you pay a very high price for heavy footwear. I want as many hikers as possible to be aware that they have a choice. Plenty of hikers have hiked along the Rocky Mountains and Andrew Skurka has circled Alaska in trail runners. You do not NEED heavy shoes or boots to hike cross country in demanding terrain. It is simply a matter of personal choice.

But in order for everyone to be able to make their choices I believe that information should be free and availble. Then it is up to everyone to choose. We all carry the weight of our own choices. And there are still people who believe the earth is flat. Fortunately they no longer have the power to stop others from claiming otherwise.
As I researched this area a couple of years ago I was in e-mail contact with Professor Stephen Legg, the author of one of the above articles and a man who did many other studies on the subject of footwear and transportation a couple of decades ago. I asked him:

Jörgen: My own conclusion is that the old adage, reputedly from the 1953 Everest expedition about 5 times is still a nice round number which adheres to available scientific findings and communicates that you pay a severe penalty for carrying weight in your feet. Exactly how heavy can vary and depends on a lot of factors.
Does this seem reasonable ?
Stephen Legg: I agree for practical purposes 5 times is a fair adage.

Welcome to Fjäderlätt, a world of featherlite hiking

$
0
0
My name is Jörgen Johansson and here on my site you will find a number of articles on lightweight backpacking. Some are in English, some are written in Swedish. Since 2003 I have realised that ligthweight gear is not about counting grams but about counting kilos. I have taken more than 10 kilos from my baseweight without doing anything extreme and I am not even an ultralight backpacker according to some definitions. During this journey I have written a number of books. In Swedish you will find Vandra Fjäderlätt in its second edition. In English you will find a number of titles in English, called Smarter Backpacking.

I have tested lightweight gear on numerous long solo treks in Scandinavia, Canada and Alaska. A key to a light and pleasant pack that still does the job and keeps you safe and comfortable is "343" or "3 for 3". This means that you bring the combined weight of the three "big ones" (tent, pack and sleeping gear) down to a maximum of three kilos. This will be the foundation of a light pack that will make every step along the trail more pleasant. You will spend less time staring at your own feet and more time enjoying the nature around you.

Unfortunately many of the photos in my articles in this blog have gone missing when Google changed technology. I am sorry about that. I am trying to update the photos by and by.
If you understand Swedish the link below will lead you to a podcast interview with me that will explain a lot of what lightweight backpacking is about and what it can do for you.

By Jörgen Johansson 

Click here for the podcast interview.

Finnmarksvidda - tundra at the top of the world

$
0
0
Finnmarksvidda is a huge, fairly flat tundra area in northern Norway. At 70 degrees north it is a long way to the Arctic Circle at 66 north. Some years ago I made an attempt to cross Finnmarksvidda in winter with a friend, but bad weather forced us to turn around. That crossing was planned from Alta to Kautokeino. The latter has been called 'the capitol of Finnmarksvidda'. This time I started out in mid August from Lakselv, a small community on an icy fiord off the Arctic Ocean, heading for the elusive Kautokeino.

By Jörgen Johansson

Getting from Stockholm to Lakselv turned out to be really easy, once I found out there was a direct flight from Stockholm to Tromsö. A couple of hours later a twin prop took an hour to put us into Lakselv. At 1800 hours a taxi had taken me to trailhead. A small path took me up the escarpment you see in the background, to the high plateau of the Finnmarksvidda.
After a couple of hours of easy walking on springy tundra I pitched my Trailstar near a lake called Stuorra Vuoddojavri.
The beginning was easy walking across a nice, rolling landscape. I followed a quad trail for a while. Quad trails would turn out to be a distinctive part of my walk.
Following the ravine of Oppdardatjohka I encountered a number of nice, small falls. This day and most of the following days I battled against a strong wind, that at times would unbalance me. Not a storm, but probably close to 20 meters per secund in the gusts.
Pretty soon I ran into a type of terrain that would be my company for the next couple of days. A bried summary would be: Rocks. As can be seen from the photo there were precious few places where there was a bit of green, offering some stable footing. In this kind of terrain nothing gives me more comfort, better ankle support, than my walking poles. Contrary to what you might think I also prefer light trailrunners (in this case Salmon Tech Amphibians) to stiff boots. The lightweight shoes makes walking less strenous and makes it easier to plant your feet with precision.
At the end of the day it started raining and it lasted most of the night. The following day then added the discomfort of not only having to walk on rocks, but on wet rocks. Not extremely slippery, but not like dry rock either. You had to watch your step.
The rocks finally gave way to a greener environment and I was further cheered by meeting this moose cow and her calf.
Coming down from these broken hills, I aimed for the end of the lake, at the right, when rain hit again and followed me into camp that night by the lake.
Getting into a camp wet and hearing the rain drum on the canopy most of the night, nothing makes the world a feel friendlier than waking up to a sunny summer morning. Note the fairly high pitch of the Trailstar. I wanted lots of space inside and the camp was comparatively protected with little wind, as I pitched the tent.
The following days were filled with easy walking, sunshine and slightly decreasing winds in big sky country.




I passed one place where people lived, at Joatkajavri, although I only heard a dog barking as I walked by and continued along the other side of the lake on a quad trail.
Quad trails tended to dominate the landscape in a way that quickly became boring. I guess I resent the progress (?) they represent. They are used by people living and working here, mostly the Sami managing their reindeers. I often walked beside them, it was softer on the feet and the walking was easy anyway. Sometimes I walked such a distance from them that I could imagine they did not exist. If I go back to Finnmarksvidda I will probably give them a wide berth since walking anywhere except in the rock gardens is so easy anyway.

There were a number of these semi-permanent installations along my route, none that were on my maps. They all had to do with reindeer management. 

There are some big rivers on Finnmarksvidda, not really possible to cross without risking your life. The crucial bridge on my route that I had been aming for was at Masi. It also was where I finished my hike. For the first time that I can remember I had gotten a serious cold while hiking. More common is that I have started out hiking with colds that have quickly scrambled back to civilisation. Not so this time. However I spent a couple of enjoyable hours in the combined store and cafe at Masi, waiting for the Kautokeino bus and listening to the locals talking.
For those interested in my gear: The three big ones where a HMG Porter Pack 4400, a 70-liter pack that weighs one kilo, a Haglöfs LIM Down (460 g), a cell foam pad and an Exped Synmat Hyperlite at 510 grams plus an MLD Trailstar with a homemade inner tent weighing 900 grams.
Pack base weight was about 7,5 kilos and starting out with food for 8 days the pack weighed about 14 kilos as I shouldered it in Lakselv. You can read more about the gear I use in the book series Smarter Backpacking on Amazon (in English) or in Vandra Fjäderlätt (in Swedish).

Time to retire

$
0
0
 It happens sooner or later, to us all. That the time will come to retire some of our most favorite gear. Now the time has come for my Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter Pack 4400. I will take this opportunity to show what a big, lightweigth pack can look like like after some thousands of kilometers. And discuss some of the pros and cons of lightweight packs.

By Jörgen Johansson

The photo above shows my pack on its maiden voyage, through Sarek National Park in September 2013. Bright white and shining, the pack and the accompanying MLD Trailstar tent were being tested for my upcoming trip to Alaska's Brooks Range in 2014.

The Porter Pack performed well in Brooks Range, both in 2014 and 2015. It was also on my back on the John Muir Trail and other parts of the High Sierra for three week trips in 2015, 2016 and 2017. It has seen what lies along the trail of Coast2Coast Sweden as well as several trips north of the Arctic Circle in Sweden and Norway. It has bushwhacked with me in Canada's Northwest Territories as well as in the Canadian Rockies. Since February 2019 it has been on my back almost daily, travelling around the world, which includes hiking in the desert of Utah and along 1000 km of the Bibbulmun Track in Australia,  as well as being my carry on luggage for the several months in between. Now, in the summer of 2019 the pack is six years old and has travelled about 3600 kilometers on longer trips and for an unknown distance on numerous shorter outings.

The pack at the East Fork of the Chandalar River, Brooks Range, 2014
Some facts: My HMG Porter Pack 4400, including a homemade back pocket (seen on first photo above, next to the sleeping pad) weighs 1060 grams and holds 4400 cuin/70 liters. It has a roll top closure and a compression system consisting of three parallell straps on each of the two side panels. It has aluminum stays in the back to provide stability, a padded waist belt and padded shoulder straps sewn on to the pack. No adjustments in back length possible, but the pack comes in different sizes, mine is a Large. It is made of a proprietary fabric of HMGs, a combination of Cuben/Dyneema Composite Fibre (DCF) and polyester.

The weight of the 4400 is not very much more than that of HMGs smaller packs, like the 2400 or 3400. The 4400 can hold and carry big loads when necessary, but also has a very good compression system (not all pack compression systems are IMHO worth the strings they are made of). Compressed, without my hiking gear, I used it for several months as carry on luggage while travelling in the South Pacific.

The pack along Your Creek, Brooks Range 2015


It is one of the few really big but also lightweight packs on the market. Most traditional packs this size will weigh around 3 kilos. For this reason it is interesting to discuss how well a pack like this jas worn during the years I have used it. It is usually said, and usually true, that lightweight gear wears out faster than "traditional". This is often used as an argument against lightweigth gear. However, my opinion is that this argument is a lot weaker than most people seem to realise.

If the most important thing about a pack, or any gear, is that it should last long enough to be inherited by our children and found in mint condition in a landfill 2000 years from now, we should probably make it from stainless steel or titanium. My belief is that most hikers never wear out much of their gear, be it lightweight or heavy weight. The reason being that most people will not have enough spare time to hike more than a couple of weeks every year, which normally does not really put a lot of strain on the gear.
The pack in the High Sierra 2015
 My opinion about lightweight gear, which I have repeated over and over in my books, is that I use the lightest gear that does the job and that it does not have to last 30-40 years. I am happy with 5-10 years. And most of us do not wait until our packs and tents are worn out before buying new ones. We buy new gear because something we believe to be better, not necessary lighter but usually sexier, has caught our attention. Which does not make us very environmentally responsible, but that is another discussion.

Let me also point out that 'the lightest gear that does the job' means that a lightweight rain jacket that leaks is not doing the job, so I will not use it. Nor will I use a tent that is shredded above timberline. And so on. This mentioned because many people who for some reason do not like ligthweight gear (the reasons summarized by two words, conservatism and commercialism, in this article I wrote for Backpackinglight.com) often claim that 'it does not work', usually without having tried it themselves.

Let us move from this to my Porter Pack. How does it look today?
Laying flat against a sweaty back for 3600+ km, the fabric is slightly discolored.

A closer look shows that some of the wrinkles in the back shows fabric fatigue (the white lines).

The homemade stuff pocket (made from silnylon) mentioned earlier was worn out after 4-5 years or so. I replaced it with the bright, white stuff pocket from HMG. As can be seen the rest of the pack is dirty and discolored.
The pack fell down a steep slope in Brooks Range in 2014. Fortunately I was not wearing it at the time . The 10-15 cm rip could be mended right afterwards, using dental floss. These stitches have held up well and can be seen right below the black webbing.
The fabric in the bottom of the pack is double. A small hole in one layer developed, also in the Brooks Range some 5 years ago. I taped it, using Tyvek Tape, and parts of the tape still remains. I have also taped 1-2 other minor holes or chafe marks to stop them from becoming holes.


Part of the seam at the bottom also show some fabric/seam fatigue







 
A major stress point is were the waist belt is attached to the bag. I have carried a maximum of 25 kilos, including food for 16 days, in the pack. There is just the slightest indication of this stress at the attachment point to the left
.
The other side of the pack, where the belt is attached, shows slightly more wear.
The roll top closure on the Porter Pack is the best I have used. It can be seen that the fabric is worn from being repeatedly rolled and strapped tight.
On the inside, below the strips of Velcro, the fabric is more severly damaged, with strands of thread hanging loose or tangled in the Velcro.

 
The zippers of the belt pockets failed totaly about a year ago, so I cut them off. The padding in the belt itself felt a bit worn, so during my recent Bibbulmun trek I cut strips from my pad and inserted as can be seen. They seemed to do the job.

All of the different wears and tears shown above is to me no big deal. They have not damaged the function of the pack in any way during the years I have used it, with the exception of the waist belt. I am OK with the fact that the pack looks like it does after 6 years and 3600 kilometers. Other people might have a different opinion.

The pack has of course never been water-proof, no matter what the producer says. I find it no more or no less water resistant than any other pack I have used. Some packs as well as large numbers of stuff sacks might be water proof in the store, the question is usually for how long that will remain when you start using them. I always pack the gear I need to keep dry in sturdy, not ultralight, dry bags. In the wet and boggy Artic, where I do most of my hiking, that is 'the lightest gear that does the job'. In other parts of the world with a more benign climate other decisions might be made.

The main reason I am retiring the pack is the condition of the waist belt. In combination with the general wear and tear this made me decide to pension off my old friend. It has after all been on my back during some of the highest highs and lowest lows of my backpacking life.

Another important reason, in fact very important, is that things have changed. At the time when I bought my Porter Pack from HMG in 2013 the 4400 did not come with side pockets. And for me and most hikers, side pockets are important. It is where I stash my wet tent in the morning and have it ready to hand at night. It is were I keep raingear, snacks and other things that I might need at short notice.

So what pack will replace my old pal? A Hyperlite Mountain Gear 4400 Wind Rider.


Today in 2019, I can get the big 4400/70 liters with mesh sidepockets, the model is called Wind Rider. I prefer mesh, where I can see my things, to the solid pockets that also can be had, called 4400 Southwest. I do not scramble much among abrasive rocks. I do bushwhack occassionally, but my experience with mesh is that it is a lot more durable than most people think. I can always put sensitive gear inside the pack on occassions like that. My hope is that the compression system, with two straps at the sides, will work as well as the three straps on my old pack. I guess I will find out.

Interview and musings on Haglöfs LIM Crown Proof

$
0
0
I interviewed Paul Cosgrove, Global Product Manager at Haglöfs, about lightweight products and mainly the new LIM Crown Proof rain jacket that is hitting the stores in the spring of 2020. This also lead to some ponderings on the different segments in outdoor; like "lightweight" and "traditional".

By Jörgen Johansson

Fording on a 500 km trek in the Swedish mountains in 2008. Wearing my all time favorite ligthweight (200 g) rain jacket, a Haglöfs Oz, long since out of production. The red chaps and grey rain shorts are MYOG.

Paul Cosgrove has worked a lot with lightweight rain jackets an other gear at Berghaus (Hyper 100) and Montane (Versalite) before joining Haglöfs in 2018. This is promising for the LIM series and other lightweight products coming from Haglöfs. Paul said that a number of products that the members in the Fb group was asking about was in in the pipline. This includes runners vests with pockets, lightweight hiking pants and tights and packs. But we will have to wait until 2021-2022 before we can buy these in our stores.

Paul Cosgrove. Photo: Haglöfs

Waterproofness and breathability

The LIM Crown Proof with Haglöfs proprietary membrane Proof has some impressing characteristics. It withstands 20 000 mm of hydrostatic head and lets air pass through at a rate of 60 000 g/m2/24 h. It is a true membrane, not a coating, made from PU. Since it is proprietary, and thus a trade secret, Paul could not divulge the actual manufacturer, apart from it being a Japanese company.

We talked quite a bit about striking a balance using the most lightweight material in existence and producing a jacket that stands up to hours of rain in Nordic conditions. He was particulary sceptic towards the real life performance of "electrospun" materials, without mentioning any companies or products. He also talked about some membranes being so hydrophilic that they could and would swell and delaminate from absorbing to much moisture within themselves. Obviously not conductive to keeping a hiker dry and away from hypothermia.

Me getting soaked and chilled wearing a RAB eVent Smock (280 g) in Brooks Range, Alaska in 2014
An important message in Haglöfs marketing is the company's roots in the Nordic climate and Nordic conditions for outdoor endeavours. Often cold and wet and with long distances between people and buildings, these conditions put high demands on functionality and reliability of gear in order to keep. "If it works in the Nordic, it works everywhere", was something Paul repeated several times.

Sizing

A number of questions from the Fb group were about sizing. Many felt that the LIM garments do not fit them, they are too slim and short in the back, exposing the lower back when bending down. This was a question Paul had difficulties in answering, perhaps because there is no answer. Like he said: "We only hear from the people who are dissatisfied".

But sizing is also a question of market segmentation. LIM belongs to a product segment that Haglöfs call "fast and light". In this segment the users, according to Haglöfs, consider the weight being the most important characteristic. On the other hand, in the segment "outdoor classic", reliability is of paramount importance.

A so called "athletic" (i e slim) cut in garments for the "fast and light" segment fits well with the concept, and self-concept, of this group of users. There are also market differences and fashion differences. If you have an "athletic" build, a slim garment looks more flattering in the store. According to Paul, French garments are even more "athletically" cut, compared to northern Europe, and when you get to Italy this is even more pronounced.

Pauls advice was for users to not look at the size, but simply choose the garment with the best fit and make allowances for the kind of use intended. Like allowing space for layering of insulative clothing underneath. He also said that bigger sizes, like 3XL, etc are being produced or will be produced.

Some thoughts on waterproofness and segments like "fast and light"

My own experience of waterproof/breathables are that they are not as waterproof or breathable as the marketing would have it. But these things change and new solutions keeps pushing the boundaries, although not as fast as the marketing would have it. But we do keep getting closer to the dream of a fully breathable, lightweight and waterproof jacket that will work both as a shell from wind and rain.

Until that day my personal solution is what it has been for the last 15 years. I use a lightweight windshirt (85 g/3 oz) for wind only and a lightweight waterproof/breathable jacket (120 g/4 oz)) as a shell against wind and rain. Since no waterproof/breathable rain jackets I have tried so far has kept the rain out for the lenght of an entire day, I also bring MYOG waterproof non-breathable TT Topcoat (35 g/1 1/4 oz) that I have described here. This I put on top of the waterproof/breathable after hiking for a while in rain, depending on how heavy the rain is and how contigous I judge it will be.

Using my TT Topcoat on top of a Zpacks Challenger jacket in Brooks Range, Alaska in 2015
After having spoken to Paul I could also not help but twist and turn the concept of market segmentation in my mind and wonder whether it is good or bad for the comfort of hikers in general. An IMHO there is nothing that means more for the comfort of a hiker than a light load.

Myself, I would probably be a "ligth classic". I neither have the urge nor the ability to go "fast". But even hiking at a leisurely pace with long breaks I prefer to use "the lightest gear that does the job". Which by definition is not the "stupid light" gear that people who on principle are negative to "ultralight backpacking", often use as examples. I mean, seriously, who wants to carry heavy gear simply because it is heavy?

So from one perspective I would perhaps think that "fast and light" gear is not for me. Perhaps I am more of an "outdoor classic" and should choose that kind of gear if the marketing so indicates?

The "outdoor classics" have a high regard for reliability. One questions is if this is "real" or "perceived" reliability? Most of us have difficulties (unless we make it a hobby in defined areas) in keeping up with technical developement in all walks of life. My question is if this kind of segmentation supports a contradiction that is not necessarily true. The one that "light" and "reliable" somehow are mutually exclusive.What was light and unreliable 10-20 years ago might be midweight and reliable today if I bother to look at the facts, instead of my own impressions that have not changed since my experiences 15 years ago.

Looking at the developements in synthetics, carbon fibers and what not, it is astounding that the bestselling big packs of 60-70 liters today weigh about a kilo more than their counterparts did in the 1970's. Why? Åke Nordin, founder of Swedish gear manufacturer Fjällräven, commented on this 15 years ago. The external frame packs of the 1970-80's where unbeatable when it came to carrying heavy loads, he said, but they did not sell. So, obviously, Fjällräven did chose what sold, instead of trying to convince the consumers that they were wrong.

Me in 1975, going down into the Grand Canyon, with a Haglöfs Blå 60 l pack with a steel frame weighing 1900 g
Most of us have probably experienced the truth in the saying: "Opinions are like nails, the harder you hammer them, the harder they stick". All this point to the obvious fact that the number one priority for outdoor manufacturers is not to educate the market, but to sell their products.

A couple of years ago I interviewed a number of known and knowledgable profiles inside or with insigths into the outdoor industry for an article in Backpackinglight.com. One of the questions that I asked was why ultralight/lightweight backpacking was not more mainstream in Europe, but still a relatively small segment. The replies pointed at a two-pronged conclusion: Conservatism and Commersialism.

Please note that the following is mostly about what the outdoor industry calls hardware, the stuff that really weighs among your gear. Like the three big ones; pack, shelter and sleeping gear. Not about what the industry calls software, which is clothing. And where the profits come from, considering that an comparatively uncomplicated Gore Tex jacket can sell for the same price as a tent.

The conservatism opposing lightweight hiking is mostly about us hikers, the consumers, where a large segment are hesitant to adapt to new technology, or perhaps to realise that their opinions on "what works" in backpacking might be a couple of decades behind "what in fact works" today. There is also a conservatism among retailers, they want stuff that is robust (since they do not have to carry it) and can stand up to any misuse without generating visits from angry customers.

The commersialism angle is mostly about the manufacturers wanting to continue selling their profitable, already developed products. About them realising that going against the conservatism of the users is very hard work and not profitable. It is also a well known truth in all marketing that the higher the number of (slightly or imagined) different products you have to offer, the more you are going to sell. And since most of us like to consume (including stuff that is supposedly "better for the planet") we will buy into this.

All kinds of packs, light and heavy, at Coast2Coast Sweden in 2016
Since I feel that every hiker will profit from using "the lightest gear that does the job" it seems to me that the sort of segmentation we are talking about here will not really help hikers realise that you need not become wet, cold and hungry because you use a one kilo pack instead of a three kilo pack, nor a 600 g sleeping bag rated at 0C instead of a 1600 g sleeping bag, also rated at 0C.

On the other hand, when companies develop segments with lightweight gear it is of course a way for them to learn the ropes, make mistakes and be ready to expand the segment when more of the market turns in that direction. While at the same time defending the market/products they have using their sizable monetary muscles to keep the lightweight segment as small as possible. Sort of stepping on the gas and the brakes at the same time.What I have come up with from major operators is literally: "We are not that interested in lightweight, since we feel it will hurt our sales".

So, like most things in life, and all coins, this thing also has two sides. How easy life would be if everything was all black and white and not so complicated.



Talk: My experiences with lightweight gear in huge, wild areas

$
0
0
This is a talk from an outdoor fair in April 2020 at Uthuset (www.uthuset.nu), a Swedish outdoor retailer. I tell of my experiences from long outings in Alaskas Brooks Range and Canadas Northwest Territories and how lightweight gear has served me very well. The bottom line is that if I can use, for instance, a pack weighing only 1 kilo on trips like that, nobody really needs a heavier pack for anything less challenging. Unfortunately the talk is in Swedish, but here you can read about my experiences in Brooks Range and along the Nahanni in English. Use these names for searching this site for more material on those trips and the gear I used. Here is the talk:


By Jörgen Johansson

Interview: How I got started with lightweight backpacking

$
0
0
Here is an interview, trailer for a blog actually, about how I got started with lightweight backpacking and decided to write the first edition of Vandra Fjäderlätt. Interview in Swedish.

By Jörgen Johansson



Talk: My experiences with lightweight gear on tundra in winter.

$
0
0
This is talk about my personal experiences using lightweight gear on tundra in winter, something I have not really written a lot about. This talk also covers some basics on lightweight gear, since a lot of what is applicable in summer also goes for winter expeditions. Focus is on tundra/above timberline techniques. The talk is in Swedish.

By Jörgen Johansson 

 

Tarptent Aeon Li in hard wind and rain on the tundra

$
0
0
In August 2021 I walked Lapplandsleden, a new trail in Swedish Lapland, 190 kilometers from Hemavan to Borgafjäll. The tent I used was a slightly modified, older model of Tarptent Aeon Li and my last night out I ran into high winds and rain on the tundra. This is about how the tent performed.

By Jörgen Johansson


The Aeon Li that I was using was bought in the US in 2019. I had used it for a total of around 50 nights along the Colorado Trail in 2019 and the Swedish Green Ribbon in 2020. The current 2021 model from Tarptent is modified in ways that will most likely improve its performance for the kind of weather I ran into.

One thing I noticed and did not like about the Aeon Li when I first got it (and have noticed on some other American lightweight tents) was that the lines were short and tended to attach to the pegs in an angle not ideal for maximum holding strenght.

Above you see that the carbon strut placed halfway between the rear corners of the tent has a very steep angle towards the peg, tending to pull the peg more upwards than sideways. For maximum strenght a tent line should attach to the peg at approximately right angles and the peg should only have a slight incline when pressed into the ground.

This construction is likely not much of a problem if you always camp in protected forest areas, which in my experience is what most American hikers frequent and the tents constructed for. In open windy areas like desert and tundra this steep angle will be a weakness.

It was easy for me in 2019 to replace the line pictured above with one that was approximately 1 meter/3 feet long and thereby solve the problem.

More complicated to solve were the angle of the lines anchoring the corner struts pictured below.

Photo: Bikepacker.com

These struts do a lot for improved ventilation and space inside a tent, something hugely appreciated by me being 190 centimeters tall. However the peg going into the ground is run through a ring that will only fit a small diameter peg and also attached to a fairly complex set of strings and elastics. So just replacing the yellow line with a longer was not an option here. So I left it, decided to give it some thought another time. And did not...

During my two month hike along the Green Ribbon in 2020 I used the Aeon Li for the first month and my MLD Trailstar for the second, northern half. One reason was that I ran into a night with hard winds and rain during the first month. The wind exposed corner of the Aeon Li shown above was ripped out of the ground in the middle of the night and I had the usual cheerful experience of getting out into the wind and rain and try to fix things. It worked out pretty well, there were a suitable number of suitably sized rocks around. So I put one in the triangle inside the peg and strings on the offending corner of the tent (and on all other pegs as well) and it held up well during the night.

What was less good was that my old model Aion Li did not have a zipper closing the foretent, but only a couple of lenghts of Velcro. That was  not enough to hold up in the high winds battering the tent and the opening was flapping and letting in rain all night. 

This last winter I replaced the Velcro with a zipper on my tent and also noticed that Tarptent had done the same with their new model of Aion Li.

Returning to my recent hike, my last evening on Lapplandsleden was a perfect end to a nice hike. I enjoyed a warm and bugfree evening outside my tent and enjoyed the views, especially the mighty 700 meter cliff of Borgahällan seen in the distance.

Around midnight the wind picked up considerably and it did not take long for the wind exposed corner peg to come loose. Fortunately it was not raining when I scampered around in the August semi darkness, trying to find suitable rocks. This time it was not so easy, but I finally managed to anchor the most exposed corner. It held for the rest of the night. 

Towards dawn the rain started, whipped by the strong winds. This was a day of torrential rains in the northern part of Sweden and the city of Gävle, further south, was flooded. Up were I was trying to sleep it was fortunately not that bad. Still, the wind pushed the shelter mercilessly and the sleeping area was diminished by the bulging ceiling of the tent. Towards morning the wind seemed rather to increase than decrease, so I had some cereals before packing up and took off, coming into the relative protection of the birch forest about an hour later. Fortunately I had only a half days walk in the pouring rain before coming to the village of Borgafjäll.

Photo: Tarptent.com

In the above photo you can see how Tarptent has improved the corners that have been a weak link in the Aeon Li construction. This is a current photo from their website. I will probably do something similar with my tent. I still think that the yellow line is a bit short (look at the angle with the peg) but that is easily fixed with longer lines and the same basic construction.

My conclusions are that the Tarptent Aion Li can stand up to high winds in exposed areas, with the improvements mentioned. I prefer the meteorological definition of "storm", being winds exceeding 24,5 meters/second (89 kilometers per hour) that can uproot trees, cause damage to houses and throw a grown person to the ground. In my opinion the word "storm" is used rather carelessly among many hikers. Few, if any, has carried a wind meter in the "storms" they talk and write about. Do not let facts ruin a good story! The winds during the two nights mentioned above were most likely not storm strenght, but hard winds around 20 meters/second. Based on my own experiences and no wind meter ;-)

However, I have spent many hundreds of nights in the Swedish mountains and have not so far encountered what I would think is storm, but a quite a number of nights with high winds. This is for three season hiking. In winter I have experienced what I believe is "storm" and my impression is that winds over here are more ferocious in winter than in summer. Winter storms are of course also much more dangerous because of low temperatures and very limited visibility, which on occassion leaves people dead on the mountain.

MLD Trailstar on the Green Ribbon 2020
So my opinion is that the 2021 version of Tarptent Aeon Li will manage well even in bad weather in the Swedish mountains. It is not indestructible (which tents are?) but the low weight of 500 grams is a very nice argument. It did not leak during the nights I have described. However, if I expect REALLY high winds and rain I will chose my MLD Trailstar, which I deem to be as bomb proof as any other 3-season tent  (due to the fact that you can change the configuration and lower the center pole a lot, giving you a not very comfortable but safe haven). But my combo of Trailstar outer and home made inner tent weights 900 grams. So it is always a bit of a ... decision, whether to take the Aeon Li or the Trailstar.

Är du långvandrare eller lägervandrare?

$
0
0
Detta är en krönika jag skrev i Utemagasinet för en del år sedan. Begreppen "långvandrare" och "lägervandrare"är översatta från Andrew Skurkas blogg. Jag tycker de är väldigt tänkvärda eftersom de sätter fingret på "det beror på" när det gäller val av "lätt" respektive "traditionell" utrustning. Sammanhanget bör styra och medvetenhet om det skulle nog minska förekomsten av att lättpackare och "tungpackare" pratar bredvid varandra. Men om man minimerar vikten på det man MÅSTE ha med sig så skapar man utrymme för det man VILL ha med sig.

Av Jörgen Johansson

East Fork of the Chandalar River, Brooks Range, Alaska 2014

För en del år sedan, när jag var jämförelsevis ung och oförvägen, hade jag Andrew Skurka som packraftinginstruktör några dagar på Yellowstone River. Andrew är mest känd för att 2009 ha skidat, vandrat och packraftat runt hela Alaska under sex månader. Det som ger oss vanliga dödliga lite svindel är det tempo han höll. Norra Alaskas Brooks Range är en av världens största, orörda ödemarker. En tundra ganska lik de svenska fjällen, men utan leder, broar, hus eller människor. Genom detta område tillryggalade Andrew i genomsnitt ett maratonlopp, 42 kilometer, per dag. Detta i en stiglös vildmark med packning på ryggen.

Andrew hade inte varit klarat detta utan lätt packning. Hans fasta utrustning, det han alltid bar, låg på 8-9 kilo. Men samtidigt måste utrustningen ändå hantera allt i väderväg som Norra Ishavet kunde tänkas dumpa på honom. Liksom i svenska fjällen kan det snöa vilken dag som helst på året i Brooks Range. Sina tankar kring lättpackning har Andrew sedan dess redovisat i boken The Ultimate Hiker’s Gear Guide. Där formulerar han också en annan bra tanke. Nämligen skillnaden mellan att vara en “hiker” och en “camper”.

MLD Trailstar, 900 gram inkl hemsytt innertält, Brooks Range 2014

 P
å svenska kan detta kanske översättas med ‘Långvandrare’ och ‘Lägervandrare’. Andrew själv är naturligtvis en extrem Långvandrare, som föredrar att under långa dagar vara i rörelse, hela tiden på väg. För Lägervandraren är lägerlivet det viktigaste. Hen går inte alltid så långt från närmsta väg, slår upp sitt tält och blir kvar där i flera dagar. Kanske gör man toppturer med dagpackning, fiskar, fotograferar, lagar god mat eller tittar på blommor.

Ganska givet blir då att Långvandrare och Lägervandrare kan ha olika preferenser när det gäller utrustning. Lägervandraren kanske vill ha en hoppfällbar stol att sitta på i lägret, ett stort och rymligt tält där man kan tillbringa regniga dagar, läsande eller dåsande. En tung sovsäck är inte hela världen, viktigare är kanske att den är billig. Långvandraren, däremot, väljer bort det som inte är absolut nödvändigt för att hålla sig mätt, varm och torr. En lätt, men dyr, sovsäck ses som en god investering för att det viktigaste för hen, vandringen mellan lägerplatserna, skall vara njutbar.

Så när Långvandraren och Lägervandraren, med sina olika målsättningar, börjar diskutera friluftsprylar så är det kanske inte så konstigt att tonläget höjs ibland. Att alla i närheten börjar ducka för att inte få ord som “gramjägeri” eller “monster-ryggsäckar” i ansiktet.

Vandring och vad med lätta skor, Brooks Range 2015


 De flesta av oss
är varken extrema Långvandrare eller extrema Lägervandrare. Men liksom i många andra sammanhang finns det ett slags förval, ett default. Den som kliver in i en svensk friluftsbutik rekommenderas nästan alltid prylar som passar bättre för lägervandraren än för långvandraren. En bra utgångspunkt är därför att nästa gång du går in i en sådan butik talar om ifall du premierar vandrandet eller lägerlivet. Och om du jobbar i butik, att fråga om kunden är långvandrare eller lägervandrare.

Med detta sagt tror jag ändå att alla tjänar på att använda den lättaste utrustningen som gör jobbet. I från fall till fall, tur till tur, får man sedan bedöma vad som är "jobbet" just denna gång. Men det finns idag ryggsäckar på 1,5 kilo tomvikt som gör jobbet minst lika bra som de som väger över tre kilo. Ryggsäcken är den enskilda pryl som de allra flesta kan spara mest vikt på. Jag brukar säga att om de prylar man MÅSTE ha med sig väger så lite som möjligt (och ändå gör jobbet) så skapar man utrymme för det man VILL ha med sig. Som färsk mat och frukt, kamerautrustning, lägerstol, klätterprylar eller en bag-in-box med vin. Den senare har fördelen att den tomma bagen kan blåsas upp och användas som huvudkudde... 

Ryggsäck HMG Porter Pack 70 liter, 1 kilo tom. Brooks Range 2015

 Själv är jag långvandrare och vill alltså ha den lättaste utrustning som klarar det jobbet. Mitt livs drömvandring var en månad ensam i Brooks Range, delvis genom samma område som Andrew Skurka. Eftersom jag var dubbelt så gammal som Andrew var packningens vikt väsentlig och jag hade ungefär lika mycket fast utrustning som han. Till detta kom mat och bränsle. Vilket tempo jag höll? 17 kilometer om dagen…

Viewing all 83 articles
Browse latest View live