Jimshaw
member
Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 3983
Loc: Bend, Oregon
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
_________________________
These are my own opinions based on wisdom earned through many wrong decisions. Your mileage may vary.
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.
_________________________
"Just enough to stay warm, dry, hydrated, and fed."
#159054 - 12/21/1102:19 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: PappyBanjo]
TomD Moderator
Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
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.
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.
Edited by TomD (12/21/1102:47 PM)
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.
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.
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.
#159061 - 12/21/1104:19 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: TomD]
Hikin Jim
member
Registered: 12/16/11
Posts: 230
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
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
_________________________ Backpacking stove reviews and information: Adventures In Stoving
Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
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....
Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
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.
#159074 - 12/21/1109:18 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: oldranger]
Franco
member
Registered: 04/05/04
Posts: 1010
Loc: Australia
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...
Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3293
Loc: Portland, OR
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.
#159076 - 12/21/1110:45 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: aimless]
Franco
member
Registered: 04/05/04
Posts: 1010
Loc: Australia
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.
#159101 - 12/22/1111:12 AMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: Jimshaw]
Pika
member
Registered: 12/08/05
Posts: 1814
Loc: Rural Southeast Arizona
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.
#159113 - 12/22/1101:24 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: Pika]
billstephenson Moderator
Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
Originally Posted By Pika
The new truck is far better than was the Ford even when it was new
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?
Pika
member
Registered: 12/08/05
Posts: 1814
Loc: Rural Southeast Arizona
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.
Quote:
In `78 the CA emission controls were so bad you can hardly get them started on a chilly morning in Los Angeles.
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.
#159131 - 12/22/1104:43 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: Jimshaw]
Slowfoot
member
Registered: 04/22/05
Posts: 159
Loc: Missouri
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.
#159132 - 12/22/1104:52 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: Slowfoot]
Franco
member
Registered: 04/05/04
Posts: 1010
Loc: Australia
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
Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
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.
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
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.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
#159152 - 12/22/1109:25 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: DTape]
TomD Moderator
Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Quote:
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 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.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.
#159155 - 12/22/1109:54 PMRe: old gear new gear
[Re: TomD]
Jimshaw
member
Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 3983
Loc: Bend, Oregon
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
Edited by Jimshaw (12/24/1104:44 PM)
_________________________
These are my own opinions based on wisdom earned through many wrong decisions. Your mileage may vary.
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.
Registered: 02/26/07
Posts: 1149
Loc: Washington State, King County
Quote:
"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."
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.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!