40 years ago when I was a kid and backpacked 450 miles one summer in California, my frame pack baseweight was 18 pounds. (45 complete with 2 weeks food)A lot of people assume that years ago packs weighed about half a ton but that modern methods have fixed that. In fact there really is very little difference in backpacking gear over that time. The nylon is thinner and we have sil nylon, but tents haven't really changed despite all of the hype - each is just another rendition of an ancient design. People have been living in tents for milleniums and there just haven't been any really new ideas since premade stakes. EXCEPT that the UL modern packs aren't capable of handling large or heavy weight.

There has been really good, mediocre and crummy gear manufactured years ago and currently. I have top of the line gear thats 20 years old that can't be replaced today with anything as good. My 25 year old WM super kodiak goretex bag may weigh 56 ounces, but it is completely seam sealed, doesn't need a bivy bag and is immune to spindrift. Its warm at -5 its rating.

I was looking at new backpacks yesterday. The big ones are as heavy as they were 40 years ago and half of the little ones are so full of bladders and extras that they weigh as much as my 6,500 inch spectra backpack. My tent cannot be replaced and neither can my 40 ounce marmot goretex tech 40 jacket with hood - they offered to replace it, but the only single garament they make with all of the features is the 8,000 meter parka.

My old down coats are warmer than the new UL down coats and are already paid for. My montebell alpine light jacket craps out at 20 degrees even wearing fleece under it. People would be warmer in a couple pairs of cotton sweat pants with a shell over, than in modern ultralight barely insulated snow pants.

Cookgear. Heck I used an aluminum boyscout cookkit. Its not THAT much lighter than my titanium and I carried a pack of matches for cooking. A spoon rounded out the setup.

Theres this lighter and tinier modern camping concept. Tiny is cold. (period =.) You need noncompresable insulation to stay warm. Modern long underwear weighs exactly the same as old long underwear. If your pack is light because you don't have enough clothes - you lose. If its too tiny it takes the extra weight of stuff sack to make the gear fit, which damages the gear, and still weighs the same amount.

It would seem that advertising hype combined with people wanting to collect a bunch of shiny gear is the main difference between the new modern ultra neato gear and the old gear that just basically did its job without any hype.
Jim

I think much of what you say is probably true, or close to it, but the bottom line is:

Forty years ago, the enjoyment was the same as it is now.

To be more precise, in mathematical terms: S = BW/FE where S = Satisfaction, BW = Base Weight, and FE = Fun Experienced.

Mick Jagger was unaware of this relationship and certainly never backpacked.

I think you're right Jim. There have been two major inovations in packs in our lifetime: pack frames and internal frames. Both make the packs heavier, but distributed the load better. Both innovations have now been around for decades. Like you pointed out, the materials have become lighter (and more expensive) but added whiz-bang features have countered the wieght advantage.

For tents, the advantages have been in condensation and bug resistance and durability, not wieght. However, they still classify a "four-man" tent for the four "freindliest" men on earth.

For clothing, I think the new stuff is better. New fabrics wick moisture as well as wool, but weigh as little as cotton. But you're right again that marketing has pushed the envelope on "less-is-more" when, in reality, what they mean is less material for more cost.

This discussion (which Jim loves to restart every few months) depends in large part on what you mean by "better" or "improved." Lighter is easy to measure, so is cost and to an extent, durability. Comfort, on the other hand, is subjective.

We are fortunate that there are so many choices, but few of us, I would speculate, can afford to buy and try every piece of new gear that comes along or even just spend time shopping and looking at gear, other than online. This is especially true of cottage gear which may only be available online.

When I bought my gear for a trip to NZ in the mid 80's, I bought what a local shop carried. If I was making those choices today, my decisions would be much different, because what I consider better choices are now readily available. I would get a different tent, different stove, different rain gear and boots for starters and a different pack.

What I wouldn't change is my base layer (Capilene which I still have) and depending on budget, my bag (a TNF Cats Meow).

What I would take would be a different stove (probably a canister or another MSR multi-fuel stove instead of my XGK, a different tent instead of my SD Flashlight (a fine tent for that era) and better rain gear (I had first generation lightweight Goretex that didn't work at all). I would also get a different boot instead of my all leather Asolo's which I have replaced with a more modern Asolo. My old pack was a TNF Moraine, I think. Worked fine, not terribly heavy (made with Cordura) but newer ones I've tried have better harnesses. Cordura is very durable and in a place like NZ, that is a good feature, especially if you are traveling by plane, train or bus at times.

One point Jim makes is very valid-unless money is no object, you can spend it replacing your gear every couple of years or spend it doing something else, like actually going somewhere with what you have. I would choose the latter.

To show that new doesn't necessarily mean better, read this-
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/everestbeyond/diaries/graham1.html

Another version of the same story-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5076634.stm

However, I bet Mallory and Irvine would have made it back down if they had better boots and crampons, better ropes and protection and modern headlamps.

I agree - many of the fundamentals of gear design haven't changed over the 30ish years I've been doing this. However, I do believe (at least in my own case) that gear has gotten lighter and more compact without sacrificing function.

Two examples: the Hubba/Carbon Reflex solo tent I use now is much lighter than the two-person tents they replaced. This is partly because, when I was using the two person tents, solo tents weren't available. My first tarp/groundcloth combo weighed about 3 pounds - about half what my tent weighed - but I gave up bug netting. Then, when silnylon tarps got relatively affordable, a silnylon tarp let me replace the groundcloth with a bivy sack that had mesh from head to waist. Then came the Hubba (and similar designs from other makers), and I could now have a comfortable solo tent for the same weight. (The Carbon Reflex was just a case of throwing money at a pound of weight savings because gear is my only vice, so I indulge myself.) But, the basic design of the Hubba is still a dome tent.

The second example is cook gear. For a long time, I carried a 2.0 and 1.5 liter pot set, a cup, and a spoon. Why? Because they hadn't invented cook-in pouches for freeze-dried food yet (nor had they figured out how to make the f/d spaghetti taste different from the f/d stroganoff.) So, I cooked in one pot and made tea water (and clean-up water) in the other. Eventually, when they became available, I replaced the two pots with a single 1.0 liter pot, and drank water with supper to eliminate the need for a tea pot or cup. (I could drink from the small pot if I wanted tea.) There, technique mostly reduced the weight and size of my kitchen (but a titanium kettle with handles eventually replaced the 1-liter pot and pot lifter, which was lighter and more convenient.)

The same things happened with a lot of other gear I carried, plus I replaced a lot of synthetic puffy clothing and sleeping bag with down items, which saved a small bit of weight and were a whole lot more compact. (Oddly, there wasn't a big change in weight or size when I moved to 800+ fill down. Again, that switch wasn't motivated by need, but merely because I wanted to.)

The result was that I no longer needed my big, heavy Dana Design Terraplane. I replaced it with a smaller pack that weighed 3 pounds, then experimented with 1 and 2 pound packs. Now I'm using a pack that weighs just under 4 pounds because that's the lightest pack I could find that had a suspension that, to my own way of thinking, was supportive enough to carry a 20 - 25 pound load comfortably. (And, on a winter trip I just did, a friend was carrying his old Dana Design Bridger pack - slightly larger than mine, but it weighed within a few ounces of mine, and was functionally the same design.)

The new gear is often lighter than comparable old gear, but not by as much as some would have you believe. I just looked over some old pack lists from my own arc of lightening my load from 35 to 20 pounds for a weekend. What I found was that simply changing my technique (simpler cooking, weeding out "nice-to-have" stuff, etc.), I took about 10 pounds out of my pack. My first round of gear replacement, just updating things without any obsessive push to reduce weight, saved 3 pounds. That got me to 22 pounds; I could easily live with that pack weight. The other 2 pounds were saved when I indulged my obsessive nature with the Carbon Reflex tent, NeoAir pad, and Hyperflow filter. That wasn't strictly necessary, but done purely because my hobby other than backpacking is playing with backpacking gear. (And, quite honestly, I'm still not convinced that the final 2 pounds will be my final gear choice - the items they replaced still, in many ways, are more convenient to use. Whether they are 2 pounds more convenient remains to be seen.)

So, yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same - the fact that a lot of my "cast-offs" are still being used by other folks is proof of that. But every once in a while, change can include some minor improvements.

And we slept on boulders and we liked it!



Gazing back across the hazy decades, the only bits of kit I'd consider still carrying might be my pocket knife, my Goretex tent, my Gerry convertible tarp shelter, my Sigg pot and fuel bottle and various bits of surplus wool clothing.

Everything else has gotten better to vastly better. Pack, bag, pad, tent, stove, flashlight, rainwear, insulation, base layer, footwear, most of the kitchen, food options, sunscreen, bug protection, maps, compasses, cameras, radios...

Funnily enough, the only brand new categories I can think of are water treatment and most electronic gadgets, with special mention to GPS and PLB/remote messaging.

Cheers,

I gotta say that gas stoves have come a long way since the 70's when I first saw them. I really do not like the old puncture type canisters. I think valved canisters really are an improvement. Blending in propane and isobutane (and no longer using 100% "plain" butane) is also a good improvement.

Of course there were some stand outs even back then like the old Hank Roberts stove which was actually designed in the 1960's. It had a side laying, valved canister with a wick. Even though the fuel was 100% butane, the wick would conduct fuel to the burner in cold weather. It had better cold weather performance than any modern upright canister stove in cold weather including things like the spiffy MSR Reactor.

Generally though, gas stoves have come a long way.

HJ

On the other hand, we have essentially lost some useful and interesting technologies - like carbide lamps. Carbides are a really neat item, providing both heat and light and the definite ability to get a fire going.

I was introduced to them when I began caving back in the 1950s and I was soon using them as my principal light source on night hikes, including SAR operations which I began about that time.

Carbides do have their foibles and a learning curve is involved in becoming proficient with them. Mine are now basically museum pieces becasue of the difficulties of obtaining and storing fuel in a fairly humid climate, but there is really no one modern item which fills the niche they occupied.

Most of my gear is a blend of new and old, like my 1951 US Army Mountain Cook set and my titanium mug. I have clothing more than twenty years old which still functions quite well. If it works well, don't worry about its age....

This stuff?

http://non-electric.lehmans.com/search#w=carbide&asug=

Those would appear to carbide lamps, or "carbide-like" lamps. I think the quoted prices, especially for calcium carbide, actually help explain the decline of the technology. I don't believe this brand of carbide has caught on with cavers these days. Everyone I know has gone to LEDs. Somewhat unfortunately, LEDs aren't nearly as warm as a nicely fired up carbide.

Carbides do have a downside, particularly that naked flame. I remember one SAR where we were responding to an injured victim at night. What was not mentioned was that the victim was in a crashed plane. People were stationed around the crash perimeter, since many of us were known to be using carbide lamps, not a good combination with spilled AV gas everywhere.

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...

I keep seeing folk going on about old gear but let's face it when it comes to the crunch we use (if possible/affordable) the latest stuff.
That gear used to be better is a bit of a myth, otherwise the non paid adventurers/explorers would all be going around looking like Mallory or Captain R.Scott.
Sometime ago I coined this phrase
" what I miss from the good old days is gear that does not break and repair shops"
My grandfather had a carbide lamp, however even in the very early sixties that was already outdated.
Again there is a nice warm fuzzy feel to it but in reality they were nothing like what we have today.

About the "good old days " here is one of my favourite quotes :
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
(that is from Socrates 470-300BC)

I would take the opportunity to remind everybody that "things are tough this Christmas" I know that because I have heard exactly the same thing for the last 50 years...

Franco

I don't have the correct reference to quote it, but there is a similar "the younger generation is disrespectful and things are going to heck" sentiment expressed in an Egyptian papyrus from about 1200 BC.

I sort of introduced a straw man or two in there, still I don't feel guilty about that...(well not with an old timer like Jim, I would with a new one)
I am actually happy that the gear Jim has works for him and he likes it or even loves it, I am all for that.
One thing that drives me nuts is people that always just put negative comments or are never happy with anything.
At the same time I spent 30 years in camera retail hearing about how cameras used to be better but also constantly selling new cameras/lenses/flashguns and so on to the Pros because they needed to remain up to par.
(speed and quality)
Outdoor gear is the same...
My walking mate was for years raving on about is pack from the 70's(you know good enough to carry 70 lbs) his Bibler Fitzroy or even an heavier older contraption, his leather boots , his 5 lbs synthetic sleeping bag , Coleman fire thrower and so on .
Trouble is that as unfit as I am compared to him, he was struggling a bit going uphill .
Now he has an ULA Circuit, one of those tarp tents, Salomon runners, a WM sb and a JetBoil Sol. Unfortunately he is now too fast for me on the steep uphill bits.
Franco

IMO, the upgrades people make are economic or skill/knowledge based. many have described some of the heavy stuff they used in their younger days. This was not because lighter or higher quality wasn't available, it was due to the cost of those items. Many used military surplus stuff from WWII or before because they could get it cheap, not because it was lightweight. The same adage used today was true back then; light, quality, cheap; choose two. When people upgrade something it isn't always because better wasn't available in the past, it was because in the past they couldn't afford the higher quality. Franco mentioned photography. My father was/is a photographer. Back in the 60's there was a certain type of lens he always dreamed of getting (I am not a photographer so it is all greek to me) but it was so cost prohibitive. For decades he used what he could afford because it was "good enough" and he was able to get by with it. Just recently he bought one of those lenses even though he is retired. He could now afford it. he raves about the quality, but it wasn't new technology it was unavailable in the 60's to him due to cost. When I was a kid, there were lightweight sleeping bags made with down available. There were two reasons i din't get one. First was cost, the second was I was a 6 year old kid who couldn't be trusted to not destroy an expensive piece of gear. So I got a cheaper heavier bag which my dad didn't get as upset when it got soaked and muddy.

I think Jim is exhibit A. High quality light weight gear has been available for many years, in some cases it was cost prohibitive and in others it is due to the lack of knowledge and skill of the user... they just can't handle it as a young kid.

I hiked the JMT in 1954 as a teenager. My pack base weight was about 15 pounds. A lot of my gear was military surplus because it was cheap and serviceable. My pack was a Bergans-style WWII German army rucksack, my shelter/rain-gear was a G.I. poncho. I cooked over fires using a tin can with a wire bail. My sleeping bag was the liner, I believe, from an army arctic sleeping bag. The bag was roughly the equivalent of a WM Summerlite but was heavier and sewn through rather than baffled. I slept on whatever clothing I wasn't wearing to bed. I got cold, wet, mosquito bitten and hungry at various places along the trail. I had a great time.

But, I am not still using that stuff. As gear that I thought was lighter and better for the purpose came along, I bought it, if I could afford it. I still have not found the ideal raingear though.

In 2008, 54 years later, I re-hiked the JMT; no longer a teenager. This time my pack base weight was just under 16 pounds: this included a tent, inflatable sleeping pad and a bear canister. Even though I was older and creakier on the later trip, I was a lot more comfortable than on the first trip. I attribute this comfort to much improved gear. For the 2008 trip I had a well fitted, comfortable pack, a warm sleeping bag, a dry place to sleep and something soft under me when I lay down. I also had music with me in my 2 oz MP3 player.

So, for someone who has enough experience to know what they need to take, much of the modern gear is a great improvement over that of the past. I am sure that there are some on this board who remember the Trapper Nelson pack boards and attached bag. And, I know that some here recall the 1950's USFS fire packs used by fire crews. I do and also remember long days with sore shoulders and raw places on my back. But, the Trapper Nelson was considered state-of-the-art in its day as were pack baskets and the old-style Bergans rucksacks. I wouldn't use any of them again unless there was no alternative. Sure, much of the newer gear has a lot of consumer-oriented bells and whistles attached. And, a lot of people buy this stuff. I look at it occasionally to see whether there are any new, good, ideas to be DIY copied and usually walk away. But, without many people working hard to make improvements on almost every facet of our lives, we would all be barefoot and living in caves.

I recently retired my faithful 1983 Ford 4x4 pickup after well over 300,000 reliable miles. I bought a new truck to replace it. The new truck is far better than was the Ford even when it was new. No, they don't make em the way they used to thank heavens, they make em better.

And that `83 Ford was a lot better than even a `78. I know, I was cutting up new Ford vans every week for years back then. In `78 the CA emission controls were so bad you can hardly get them started on a chilly morning in Los Angeles.

In `74 I bought an old 1950 Ford when I was 15 and got the owner's manual with it. It said the car had a 6 month, 5,000 mile warranty, and that was considered pretty good.

Since I consider vehicles an important piece of gear, I have to ask, what did you end up getting this time?

Bill,
I got a Toyota Tacoma. Warranted for 36,000 miles or 36 months; most manufacturing flaws show up in that interval. It is not a real powerhouse being a 4-cyl but I get nearly 30 mpg at 65 mph. At my age, I'm not in that much of a hurry anyway.

I probably would have kept the Ford but it had a lot of rust penetration. It lived in Utah and Colorado road salt country for seven years. And I was having trouble getting replacement parts for it. Not stuff like engine and transmission parts but replacement parts for the cruise control and the turn indicator switch. I needed a new horn button/cruise control switch panel and could never locate one. I had to twist wires together to engage the autopilot; not an easy thing to do at highway speed.


They weren't that much better outside of CA. I still remember the dual diaphragm distributor on a Bronco 302; one to advance and one to retard the spark. I was never able to get that thing working as Ford claimed it should so I converted the thing to an electronic sensor and put a single diaphragm on it. I never touched the distributor after that.

This is at least the second time you've mentioned the Montbell alpine down jacket not being warm enough. Just because it's not what you need doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Heavier down jackets are available, even from Montbell. Some of us prefer lighter jackets because we aren't out in really cold temperatures, so they do work fine for many people. This really has nothing to do with old or new gear, just about matching the gear to the conditions.

Thanks Slowfoot.
Just like my favorite peeve when people mention that the Neo Air is not warm enough below freezing as if that were a fault.
It (the original...) was not designed for below freezing weather just like my beloved Montane shorts. Great in summer but not "faulty" in winter...
Franco

You make some excellent points. As a college student, I was always on the prowl for military surplus bargains. They were very helpful since they worked well enough and were cheap.

About the time I finished my draft obligation and became military surplus myself, I decided to finally upgrade and put some serious money into gear, a move which was actually economical in the long run. It helped that I was out of school and finally had a steady job.

It's a huge pet peeve of mine that people who tell me things like that usually do so after I have used the gear in their presence, or talked about using the gear, successfully, aka being warm, dry, the stove boiled the water, the tent/tarp did the job it was supposed to... Sick of people deciding that because they think it doesn't work (regardless of their never having used the item) they can lecture and scold and warn me for daring to do something they don't expect.

The NeoAir was warm for me below freezing quite a few times over the last three years, by the way. And I did not use a foam pad with it.

I do not care whether gear is old, new, used, cheap, whatever. I care that it works well for the anticipated conditions for which I got it, and does not break my back or my wallet. I won't spend big bucks on anything but down gear, and have managed to be thrifty and light.

I knew this was going to happen. I know Jim personally and have been camping with him. His gear and his skills that you discredit came in handy when I went on my first winter camping trip with him in Yosemite in a snowstorm and I got food poisoning from something I ate on the way.

To say that you don't know what you are talking about is just me being polite. Jim doesn't need me to defend him, but since I know him personally, I am happy to do so. I have one of the stoves I have because Jim recommended it and it works great in winter conditions.

FROM A MODERATOR (ME):
NOW, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND WILL SAY AGAIN-
PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHER MEMBERS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT (OR EVEN WHEN THEY DO).

This has nothing to do with Jim; this policy is how we conduct these forums. Eveyone is free to argue about gear or the best way to do something, but making personal remarks about people you don't know will get you sent to the sin bin.

TomD
I didn't read that as a personal attack, I think I am a good example having the prohibitively expensive high quality gear that WAS available, but as a moderator I have to support the effort to limit personal attacks. Thank you for your support.


All

This is a forum and is open to all to share ideas, pro and con; however the moderators have decided as a group that our combined experience does allow us to occasionally [censure] individuals who are too insistent about the value of questionable ideas which could pose a threat to other readers. Your personal feelings about what I think about my gear are of little value to the rest of the group and certainly are not going to draw me out. I just plain do not care what insults may be thrown by an anonymous user with a cryptic user name.
Jim

I apologize for not carefully wording my post. It was not a personal attack, not even a hint of negativity towards Jim, his knowledge or experience. Quite the contrary. I thank Jim for being able to read correctly my intent.

Shortly after I finished the AT my wife and I were on a trip with some overall nice folks, and one (otherwise nice) fellow lectured me at length about how dangerous bears are, and how I had presumably been doing everything wrong. To my knowledge, the guy hadn't hiked much in his life nor had much or any personal encounters with bears, but he "knew" enough to pontificate on the topic at length.

It's actually helpful, I find, when it gets so ridiculous that a person can hopefully just sit back and enjoy the show rather than arguing or feeling attacked or whatever. I'm still working on this, but am convinced that it's the right approach in such situations!

And FWIW, I'm with you on the neo-air; I've used mine down into the teens, albeit in that case with thinlight ccf pads both above and below.

Just because a piece of gear did the job for you does not necessarily mean it will do the job for everyone. That's especially true of insulation, because physiology and metabolic rates vary widely among individuals.

For example, look at the EN13537 ratings for sleeping bags. This is one of the few objective standards around for rating warmth of outdoor gear, although it applies only to sleeping bags. Page down on the above URL and you'll see a colored diagram showing the difference between the "comfort rating" for the "standard woman" (whatever that is) and the "lower limit" rating for the "standard man" (whatever that is). I prefer to translate these terms as "cold sleepers" and "warm sleepers," since I know men who are cold sleepers and women who are warm sleepers. The diagram shows that the difference between the two ratings is 5*C or approximately 9*F.

I owned a Marmot Hydrogen sleeping bag a few years ago and started getting cold in it when the temperature got into the upper 30's, even though it's rated at 30*F. Now that Marmot is using EN13537 ratings, it's easy to see why. The rating for men (translate "warm sleepers") is 29.8*F. The rating for women (translate "cold sleepers") is 39.2*F. I am definitely in the "cold sleeper" category, and these ratings explain quite well why I had to start wearing extra clothing inside the Hydrogen with the temperature in the upper 30's. By the time the thermometer got down to 30*F, I had all my insulating clothing on inside the bag to keep warm. When the thermometer dropped into to the mid 20's, I was shivering with all my insulated clothing on (and I had a lot of it; I was expecting those temperatures). According to the EN13537 ratings, that's exactly what should be happening. Evidently I fit the profile of the "standard woman" used for these ratings, so I'm not, as I once thought, an unusually cold sleeper.

Apply this 9*F difference between warm and cold sleepers to the NeoAir, ostensibly rated at 32*F, and you have the explanation why I started feeling cold underneath when the temperature dipped to the upper 30's. I had to use a supplemental CCF pad, which of course canceled out any weight savings of the NeoAir over the insulated air pad I had been using, which for me was comfortable to the low 20's F.

The "standard" used for the EN13537 ratings is, of course, an average, which explains why some individuals are comfortable with a 32-30* F sleeping bag or pad when the temperature is down in the mid-20's. There are undoubtedly some individuals who start feeling cold in the mid 40's F with identically rated items.

I also found the NeoAir uncomfortable, which was the other reason I returned it after 6 months of trying hard to make it work. The whole experience was a really good lesson for me about NOT choosing a gear item based only on its light weight! With its small horizontal tubes, I never could find the "sweet spot" of inflation between lying on an uncomfortably hard surface and having my hip bones hit the ground when I was on my side. I also kept rolling off the thing any time I got close to the edge. I've read that this is the most common complaint about the NeoAir--it feels narrower than other pads because the outside edge collapses when the body gets close to it. These findings are, of course, subjective, so again will vary widely with individuals.

The above experience, as well as the temperature ratings, is why I caution about the NeoAir to people looking for air pads, particularly if they're going to encounter cold nights. It's definitely not for everyone, and for many of us it's a summer-only pad (for the Cascades, but not for the Rockies). The NeoAir is also a very expensive piece of gear to try out. Although I've often been unhappy with REI, with the NeoAir I was very grateful for their return policy!

It's wonderful that you are happy with your NeoAir. I'm not trying to invalidate your experience. Please don't try to invalidate mine. We are each unique individuals, obviously with very different reactions to cold temperatures!

Yup, "true dat". Easy to just assume that but very worth mentioning that when I or anyone says "it works well for me" that the "for me" part might be the most significant part of the sentence.

Isn't that the truth!!!

I think it's a mistake to think of someone else stating their experience as invalidation. It's merely someone else's experience.

I am a cold sleeper, because I do start layering up quicker than nearly everyone else - I have good results with gear that others find cold, and bad experiences with gear that other people think is warm.

The problem with narrowing down your choices based on other people's reviews of the item in question is that there are too many variables - it matters how you use the item, where and when and how cold or warm it is, how the individual's body handles changes in temperature, and what you expect of the item vs. what the manufacturer claims vs. actual quality of said item. Too many people set up a tent, get wet, and blast it all over the internet that it's a bad tent, when they are really picking the wrong tent or setting it up poorly. I read a comment on a sleeping bag dissing the bag because "somehow water got into it and the liner was damp" - clearly not someone who understands that their body is giving off moisture all the time.

So all I can do is say what happened, and if it's different than everyone else's results - like the endless complaints of noise or cold with the NeoAir - that's just another point of information to the person requesting information. I really have no idea why I like the NeoAir and you don't - I think it's too narrow, but all pads are 20" wide, somehow I just learned to deal with it because it's been warm and comfortable and not at all noisy. I don't inflate it to capacity ever - perhaps that offsets some of what people complain about, because the less you inflate it, the wider it is.

Sorry if you feel like I'm attacking you in any way.

I didn't, Lori; I am just trying to point out that what works for one person doesn't always work for another, even when skills and knowledge are not at issue.

Speaking of reviews, how many have you seen that read something like this: "I took the (name of gear) on a three-day trip to (name of place). The weather was beautiful the whole three days. This is an awesome (name of gear)!" This was an actual review in the reader review section of BackpackingLight (not a review from their editorial staff)! I've seen similar on retail store websites. My idea of a good review is the kind found on backpackgeartest.org, where the reviewer tries to use some objective criteria and make a thorough evaluation over time. I won't even recommend gear I really like until I've used it at least a year and in really adverse conditions.

You notice that I said nothing about noise with the NeoAir. I understand that the noise complaint originated from the BPL review, from only the spouse of one reviewer and with a prototype rather than the final model (it would have been helpful if Cascade Designs had told them that). The NeoAir was actually the least noisy of any of the four different air pads I've tried! All of them make noise. My current KookaBay pad makes a horrible squawk if I plop down too hard. Fortunately, it's difficult to hear any air pad noises with a warm hat and several inches of sleeping bag hood over the ears!

I didn't read that post as an attack. Quite the opposite. I took it to mean that Jim has had, and still uses, high quality gear and that by most standards it would still be called high quality. New gear doesn't necessarily mean higher quality, or better, although it's often hyped to be just that.

And it's true, the reason I haven't had, or don't have, lots of high end gear is because I couldn't afford it (and all the other stuff I wanted).

I've often opted for high quality used items over lower quality new items. It's true, they don't make some things they way they used to, and it some cases that's not always a good thing.

If I had a high end down bag that worked really good for me I'd be really hard pressed to buy into something new no matter what the hype was, and if a really good piece of gear gave up the ghost I'd be slow to replace it with something new. I'd have to see what was used out there first.

I've bought into new technologies that were touted to be leaps better. I am very slow to do that now, and I don't mind getting my moneys worth out of what I have first.

Lot's of times the benefits of new technologies are real, and statistically significant, but still not statistically worth the cost of replacing what you have. That makes it a personal decision and it can be based on nothing more than wanting the latest greatest stuff. There is nothing wrong with that.

Lot's of people want a shiny new car. I want a car that will last a long time. All my cars have been used. I have to get them somewhere, so it all works out

Far better than any internet based review or even most discussions is a side by side comparison out on the trail when one of your companions brings along the Shiny New Toy and everyone else can gawk,pinch, and kick the tires to determine if it is the next Indispensable Item.

I can remember gasping in awe, tugging on my forelock, at the first stuff sack, first Kelty frame pack, first Primus, etc. and experiencing a convincing demonstration of their utility.

first Primus, etc.

Old as you are, I think the first Primus stove was before your time, oldranger. From Wikipedia:

"The Primus stove, the first pressurized-burner kerosene (paraffin) stove, was developed in 1892 by Frans Wilhelm Lindqvist, a factory mechanic in Stockholm, Sweden."

I have a collection of camp stoves. Not only do I enjoy having them, but I have this idea that someday someone is going to want to know how one performs compared to another or how one works or how it feels to use. And I will be able to show/let them.

Other times I think of an interview Jay Leno did at an auto show. He said this hobby (collecting cars) was for people with more money than brains. Maybe that's me on a smaller scale. But I still like to take one off the shelf every once in a while and fire it up just because I can.

I am afraid I didn't put it very preciseely. I'm referring to the first time I experienced a Primus- which was on Long's Peak somewhat later (1957) - a time when I was being exposed to a lot of new (to me) equipment and techniques. Fortunately one of those was nylon climbing rope.

In the end, what matters is not whether the gear is old or new, but whether it is appropriate.

Thanks for the reference. I have wondered just how old the technology actually is.... Still actually works pretty well.

That's the truth. I've got stoves going back to the 50's that work as well or better than anything new and it's just plain fun to fire 'em up. The Sveas, R-8's, Peak 1's, all get taken out still, just because it's fun to watch them go. Age has nothing to do with it.
I still would love to see a Titanium Svea or R-8 someday...it would revitalize the design.

I also still use an old Texsport dome tent I found blowing across the desert floor in 1984, and it was old then! Patched it up, replaced the fiberglass with aluminum poles, and it's still my go-to car camper-festival tent.

Since I make or modify much of my stuff, there really isn't a such a thing as 'old' gear. If it works, and fits the need, I use it. If it withstands the test of time, so much the better.

OM, my own experience is not even uniform. I consider myself a normal sleeper, but if I have hiked too many miles and go to bed chilled without supper then I need a kit rated about 15 degrees higher than the overnight low.

I camped last weekend with a guy just back from Afghanistan. I envy his youth, fitness and metabolism. He consistently wears one or TWO less layers than me. As a child I found that I needed to put on a sweater/coat/gloves when my mother got cold.

It is hard to be angry with people when their warnings are motivated by true concern about your confort and safety. However, knowledge is power and some use it to establish dominance.

If all our comments must be based on experience then Mr. Shaw and Brawny are the only ones qualified to comment on open flames in a tent.

I miss my mother and first assume that warnings are motivated by concern about safety and comfort. However, I always have a plan B.

Funny you should mention backpackgeartest - I may, once I finish reviewing all my gear, start pasting in links to them instead of telling the same story every time someone asks about something I have.

One of the useful things about that site is they require you to talk about the conditions you used it in and how many nights out you used the product.

However, it's not always easy to catch the reviewers who have fudged the numbers.... I don't, because I'm rarely caught short - I have the hardest time if I happened to have some illness or delay of a trip due to circumstances.

Lori, that is a great site.

I've been cleaning my basement and found an old pair of combat boots made in 1983. Comparing them to my Danner boots, I find them superior. Same weight. 5/8 inch heel to wear out instead of 3/16. .25 inch soles instead of .125.

Surprisingly, they are the same weight as my Danner's. Sadly, my feet got wider, so I can't wear them.

I also found some running shoes from the early 80's. I used to keep track on the mileage on the sides, so have good comparisons. One pair lasted over 1,300 miles. The soles on the others started to delaminate at the toes after 3 or 400 mils. Nothing a little shoe goo couldn't fix.

I read a review on the Merrill Moab Ventilator's. The review was good. Hidden in it, he said he could walk just as far in them as he could in boots. Personally, I find I can hike just as far and fast in good boots as I can in shoes. I use a GPS, so the comparisons are accurate.

I've become a bit of a boot afficiondo. Not high top shoes, but real leather boots handcrafted in the United States. I've really gotten to like walking through puddles instead of around them. And not getting wet in deep snow.

I'm considering Danner Mountainlight's.

I'm heading in the opposite direction on footwear I guess. I've been using a pair of Danner Mountainlights off and on since around 1985. Very comfortable if heavy by today's standards, and still in great shape.

I just got some Columbia Switchback mids to try to save about a pound off each foot. The last time I used "lightweight hiking boots" as they were called then was the early 1980s, when I had a pair of cordura nylon boots with cemented soles. Can't remember the make. They only lasted a couple of years, but I remember they worked pretty well.

Maybe my feet aren't that picky. When I was a teenager, I hiked in surplus Vietnam jungle boots for years, and I liked them too.

Without doubt though, the Mountainlights are the longest lasting boots I've had.