Tent+Pack+bag=boots

Posted by: DJ2

Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/22/10 11:56 AM

I was musing on the subject of lightweight gear the other day and I realized that the weight of my current tent+backpack+sleeping bag is less than the weight of the boots/socks I used to wear.

tent=2 lbs
backpack = 1 lb
sleeping bag 2 lb
TOTAL 5 pounds

Boots, in 1970s, were Raichle Palus and I wore 3 pair of socks, one of pair of which was heavy thick wool. I don't have the exact weight for all this but I'm sure it was greater than 5 pounds. My current shoes + socks are running about 1.5 pounds.

The reduction in weight is a good thing because at 65 years old I go half as fast and half as far with half the load than I did when I was 25 years old.

I've also read that 1 lb on the foot is as tiring as 5 lbs in the pack. If this is even partially true then I'm reducing weight in the right area of the machine.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/23/10 11:19 PM

Mine: Tent plus stakes, 27 oz.
Sleeping bag, 24 oz.
Backpack, 27 oz.

Total 78 oz. or 4.9 lbs. My boots were never that heavy, but the Eccos I stopped using (except for winter snows) two years ago weigh just under 3 lbs.
Posted by: Pika

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/24/10 09:09 AM

Tent and rigging = 33 oz, pack = 15 oz, sleeping bag = 19 oz: Total = 4.2 lb. When I wore boots, I was doing a lot of climbing (in the PNW) and using crampons. The boots I used were 3/4 shank Dolomites at 6 lb per pair. Interestingly, from about 1970 on, I carried my boots in my pack until I needed them and wore running shoes on the approach. Most of the people I climbed with did the same.
Posted by: DJ2

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/24/10 11:06 AM

Pika,

I guess the carrying of boots in the pack provides real life support for the "one pound on the foot is like 5 lbs in the pack" comment I've read in various places.
Posted by: DJ2

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/24/10 11:07 AM

Oregon Mouse,

Let me guess.....Tarptent?
Posted by: Pika

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/24/10 11:54 AM

Yeah, or six pounds in the pack. What I do remember clearly was how much less work the approaches were when I switched to running shoes.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/24/10 12:13 PM

Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic.
Posted by: chndlr04

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 08/27/10 03:31 AM

my hammock, pack, both, together are heavier than my boots thats for sure, but boots are really a preference, i wear them because i off trail often, and im not the most steady hiker so the shanks provide me stablity for my ankles. so it depends, dont worry about the weight of your pack+bag+tent vs boots. and besides boots dont weight 5 lbs nowdays, mine are 3 lbs
Posted by: Franco

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/04/10 08:47 PM

"one pound on the foot is like 5 lbs in the pack"

As a bit of a skeptic I take a lot of those popular saying with a grain of salt.
Often enough they are a myth , for example the "sleeping naked is warmer..."
So a few years ago I looked that up and was able to find the original study by the US Army on that.
Can't find that PDF but from memory it was posted on an official US Army site.
Anyway the study came up with a number around that 5lbs mark.
A more recent study came to this conclusion :
"It was concluded that the mass of footwear resulted in an increase in the energy expenditure which was a factor 1.9–4.7 times greater than that of a kilogram of body mass, depending on sex and walking speed."
Note that it states "body mass" so a backpack (usually not having the center of gravity in the right spot) could be greater.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u18032vm25770745/
Franco
Posted by: Ladybug

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/06/10 01:37 PM

I am so in favor of a lighter pack HOWEVER you really need to use caution. In mid July we did a 6 day backpack trip in Jasper National Park. To lighten our load we took my daughters newer 2 season tent which weighed 1/3 the weight of my older 3 season tent. When we encountered snow the first night out and freezing temps the following 3 nights I would have happily been packing the extra weight.
Posted by: DJ2

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/08/10 12:14 AM

I'm impressed Franco. You are better at searching than I am.
Posted by: Zalman

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/16/10 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By Franco
As a bit of a skeptic I take a lot of those popular saying with a grain of salt.


Thanks for posting the study link, Franco. I'm a big fan of original sources (I've also noticed that plenty of studies sport "conclusions" that are more in line with their sponsor's worldview than the actual test results).

One point that I find interesting about this metric is that it focuses strictly on mass. For me, energy expenditure while walking can be greatly affected by the comfort, fit, and functionality of the shoe as well. I think I'd grow fatigued a lot quicker wearing 4lb standard-issue "combat boots" than with well-fitting 6lb "hiking boots" for example. I used to hike in sandals, but found the weight savings insufficient to offset the extra energy I spent placing my foot squarely with each step, and avoiding sticks and rocks along the way.

A second issue here is the combination of shoe weight with pack weight. I find a slightly heavier shoe helps to offset the higher center of gravity caused by carrying a pack, stabilizing my stride and greatly reducing overall fatigue. I think this relationship deserves more investigation as well.
Posted by: BarryP

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/16/10 12:02 PM

“I used to hike in sandals, but found the weight savings insufficient to offset the extra energy I spent placing my foot squarely with each step, and avoiding sticks and rocks along the way.”

Hmmm. Sounds like you had the wrong type and fit of sandals.

-Barry
Posted by: Zalman

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/20/10 11:18 AM

Originally Posted By BarryP
Sounds like you had the wrong type and fit of sandals.


Could be, Barry, I used primarily Teva hiking sandals in those years, and I don't doubt that sandal tech has come a long way since then. Still, sandals are by definition open shoes, and will always require some degree of offsetting effort to avoid trail hazards that a boot wearer can safely ignore (around here the main one is nettles, I guess). Whether that effort is worth the weight savings or not I imagine will depend greatly on both the hiker and the terrain.

My biggest addiction these days though is warm, dry feet, something I was never able to achieve with sandals anyway, so I'll be sticking to my 10-year-old GoreTex hunting boots for a while longer.
Posted by: JAK

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/22/10 10:05 PM

I have an old pair of soft leather ankle boots that are only 16oz per boot in size 12. They do have a gortex liner but are other wise unpadded. The sole isn't to thick, which is nice, but they could use some tread pattern, even waffles. I do like them alot. I use them sometimes Fall/Winter/Spring, around town, dayhikes, and overnights. The other thing I use are 6oz Adidas Adizeros, even in winter. I like the way they drain so well. They could be a little more protective, but I like the thin sole, and the simple waffle works amazingly well on ice and snow and wet rocks. Thinking about resoling the ankle boots as ankle moccasins.

I like this company and would love to try them but can't afford them. They are 1.5 hours away though so I will drop in sometime and beg for a deal. smile
http://www.quoddy.com/

Another interesting maker of traditional leather stuff:
http://www.arrowmoc.com/

In terms of more mainstream plastic stuff, I find Inov8's entire lineup very promising and would love to try them on, from running flats right through to hikers.
http://www.inov-8.com/

I like the way all three of these companies offer a reasonably limited lineup, which should mean the product line won't be discontinued too regularly. I have lost patience with mainstream shoe companies the way they offer mostly crap and keep changing models. The original Adidas Adizeros were great, but now I see they have 20 different Adizeros, but they are mostly crap and nothing I want. They claim to be superlight, yet they've gotten heavier, and the sole looks less grippy and/or overbuilt and gimmicky, and they look like they won't drain as well and absorb more water. Should have bought 3 pair, but shouldn't have to do that.
Posted by: NorthTxHillbilly

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/23/10 12:54 AM

I wear tall cowboy boots almost 24/7 from about this time of year till May or so, and most times walking through the fields in the summer as well since we have a lot of rattle-headed copper-moccasins here. I have a pair of "Nevados" hiking shoes I'm thinking of using on an upcoming hike. I bet they weigh half as much as my boots, and that ought to be nice. I'll weigh both tomorrow after I dig the Nevados out and see what the difference is. If I can walk around dove hunting all day with my Remington 870 express 12 gauge (about 8 lbs loaded) and my 5 lb worth of stuff and water in my fellybag with those cowboy boots on then I ought to be able to cover just as much ground with my hiking shoes and backpack, I reckon. One of those things like the MLB guys with the batting doughnuts. When you're used to a certain load on a daily basis and then suddenly decrease the weight by just a little bit, its surprising how noticeable it can be.
Posted by: Zalman

Re: Tent+Pack+bag=boots - 09/27/10 01:14 PM

It sounds like you and I have the same taste in shoes. "Support" drives me nuts, and the only time I've ever injured my foot was when I tried using a shoe with "arch support". Ick! I like a barefoot-style walk.

My current boots are similar to yours -- unpadded GoreTex leather ankle boots -- but with a Vibram sole, weighing in at 1.5lbs per boot. Those Inov-8 shoes look very interesting, I might just have to try a pair of the Roclite 288's.