|
You don't need a permit to park there and you aren't required to put license plate info on the wilderness permit. For what it's worth, though--and this is probably just bad luck--I have encountered a ranger within a couple miles of the TH literally every time I start out of either South Lake or Sabrina Lakes. Is your intention still to go over Bishop Pass, though? Or do you just want to change your trip to fool around in Sabrina Basin instead?
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:I'm not surprised that you saw rangers near the THs, based on their popularity. Nice! From Sabrina you can take the common route to Darwin's NE ridge, from which Darwin Glacier will at least be visible and may be covering the north side of the ridge depending on time of year. You can probably descend down to the other side the from the NE ridge but I've never done it. I know people ascend the NE ridge from that side so it ought to be possible. The bottom of Darwin Glacier can be approached from the north via Lamarck Col, but that is best started from North Lake. Although, since the non-campground parking for North Lake is like a mile and a half from the TH, just walking there from Sabrina Lake parking isn't much worse (~2mi). You can also do North Lake -> Piute Pass -> Keyhole by Muriel Peak but that's longer. For what it's worth I really like the view from Lamarck Col, and Mt Lamarck is an easy side trip if you go that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I have a 4 night trip in the Yosemite high country in a week and a half, starting to think about a Plan B if the fires don't get better. Any advice for multi-night backpacking trips within say 4 hours of the Bay Area where I wouldn't need a permit way in advance? We were planning on 10-15 miles/day. Mountains p hosed right now. This week is much worse than last week, but who knows how it will be a week+ from now. Normally when the Sierra Nevada is somehow hosed and I want to see mountains, I go to the Trinity alps (no quota on wilderness permits so good for last minute). But there are a shitzillion road closures up there due to the apocalypric firenado that wrecked Redding and they will probably remain for the forseeable future. Lassen NP and Shasta are accessible, but smoke looks really bad there. In general, things have been getting worse, but the best bet has generally been further south along the eastern sierra / I395. Bishop Pass / Palisades / Big Pine Creek were all mostly fine last week, just hazy. Lone Pine / Kearsarge pass was fine at least on the Eastern part and in the high country. That being said Bishop pass looks pretty hosed right now, although Lone Pine still looks OK. The permit line at White Mountain station was much longer than usual early in the morning on Friday last week, since a lot of people are making re-arrangements to their trips after getting smoked out further north. In general permits will be much harder than usual to get since everyone is being concentrated in the few not-too-smokey areas on any given day. If the Bishop Pass area is relatively smoke free, permits for Inyo NF Baker and Green lakes area are usually much easier to get (often even the reservable quota doesn't run out for weekends in august, which is rare for any TH). This may be in part because there isn't too much in the way of longer on-trail itineraries out of that TH. But If you are OK with talus slogs and like good views there are some pretty decent class 2 routes you can do starting from there, like Green Lake -> Vagabond/Cloudripper -> Cloudripper east ridge down to 7th lake -> cross over Mt Agassiz SE to W face -> fool around Dusy Basin and hike out of Bishop Pass. Or you could just fool around Green Lake for the first night then hike back onto the bishop pass trail and do any of the many excellent 3 day class 1 itineraries available from there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Just FYI, apart from calling the relevant ranger station and checking any webcams, this site is decent for having an idea of where fires are which way the wind is blowing smoke. https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=topics.smoke_wildfires
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
FireTora posted:Any water filter recommendations? My Katadyn Hiker Pro cartridge ended up getting too clogged due to age last week and a couple filthy water sources that the check valve blew out. It'll cost the same to buy a new one as it will to get the housing replaced and a new cartridge. I'm leaning towards getting another Hiker Pro right now, but have been thinking about trying out a Sawyer Squeeze, or one of the MSR purifier pumps. For relatively clean water sources I really like the Katadyn BeFree. It's a very fast filter--fast enough that you can drink directly out of it as fast as you would want to. In places where you know water is relatively abundant, you can carry minimal water or forego carrying any at all and just take a quick drink when you come across a source and move on. It only weighs 2-3 oz including a 1L bag, and can serve as one of your water bottles. If treating large amounts of water for a group, or if you need to carry large amounts of water with you, other systems like the Platypus Gravity are probably better. And I don't know how the filter would stand up to really dirty water. But for typical trips in the mountains I think the BeFree is hard to beat. There were some durability issues with the soft plastic bags/bottles early on but as I understand these have been resolved. I haven't personally had any issues. Morbus fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Aug 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Pretty standard winter layering system (excluding gloves and all that) for those temperatures is something like: -Warm baselayer top and bottom -Light insulated jacket, or fleece, or both -Windbreaking layer, either a softshell, windbreaker/windshirt, or hardshell, worn over or under the light insulating layer depending on the nature of both -A very insulated down jacket (with hood!) to put over everything when resting or inactive or very cold. This layer should have a fill weight of ~8oz or so of 800 fill power down or equivalent, a fairly wind resistant DWR nylon shell, good handwarmer pockets, and not much else. The first three/four layers should generally keep you warm while active, the last is mainly to keep you from freezing when you need to stop. Incorporating waterproof/breathable membranes like goretex or outdry into your super warm parka layer is not really necessary in most situations where the temperatures are cold enough to warrant such a layer in the first place (i.e. well below freezing). Most heavy down jackets (like the quintessential patagonia fitz roy) have robust enough shells to deal with frozen precipitation. Morbus fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Synthetic baselayers and fleece at a given fabric weight will hold less moisture than wool...but I can believe for example that a 200wt fleece jacket might hold more water than a light wool sweater. In general, though, polyester is the preferred baselayer material for retaining minimal water and drying quickly. As far as stink goes, I've had pretty good results with the polygiene treated stuff. It's not as odor proof as wool, but I can go several days wearing the same baselayer and it doesn't get offensive Down vs synthetic insulation is a complicated issue but in general, if sweat is going to be an issue, a light synthetic jacket is a good way to go. Even then things get complicated, for example a layering system that incorporates a highly breathable light synthetic like the Patagonia Nanoair will be different than one using a warmer-for-it's-weight, more windproof, but less breathable jacket like the Rab Xenon. Plenty of people can and do use down as an active insulation layer, it just depends on conditions, activity, and how it fits into the overall system. For example in dry conditions well below freezing but not super windy/stormy, you would be fine with a light down jacket over a fleece+baselayer, maybe a with a softshell, even at moderate activity levels, especially if it just for 1 or 2 days. In the same conditions but windy/stormy enough that you want a hardshell, things may be trickier since you'll trap more sweat than you'd like using down as a midlayer under goretex, unless you are careful about limiting your activity level and/or dress to remain somewhat cold. In a more humid maritime winter climate with high winds, synthetics are almost certainly the way to go. Scottish winter, down is just gonna suck. For multi-day trips, the more nights you go without having an opportunity to warm and dry your stuff, the worse down is going to perform. For your outermost superinsulation layer, down is the material of choice since it's not beatable in terms of warmth per weight (which adds up in a highly insulative jacket), and you only put that thing on when you are resting or at a low activity level so sweat is not an issue. One thing that is nice about down, especially if you are starting out, is it lasts forever if taken care of, so it's easy to find bargains on 2nd hand jackets, sleeping bags, etc. Almost all of my down stuff is 2nd hand and it's saved me hundreds of dollars. Synthetic insulation, on the other hand, doesn't have a great reputation for long term durability, as the fibers tend to degrade over time. This is especially true for short staple insulation like primaloft or equivalents. Some of the newer fancier continuous fiber insulations are allegedly more durable but I think it's too soon to really tell. My primaloft jacket has had 2 years of heavy use and abuse and while it's not as lofty as it was when new, it's still mostly fine, for what that's worth. Anyway if its really gonna be below 0(F?) make sure you have sufficiently (very) insulated and waterproof boots. If there will be deep soft snow bring gaiters, or relatively snug-ankled pants with grommets or something you can use to run some shock cord under your boots. If snow gets into your boots and melts, at those temperatures, your feet will get loving cold loving fast.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Plan is to push a bit the first couple of days, try to get there for sunrise of third day, then descend and spend most of the 3rd day resting, walk back 4th-5th day at a bit more of a leisurely pace. Friend has done 60km walk plus ~5 hour mountain climb before without much issue or soreness the next day; he'll probably be good. I'm definitely less fit so it will be up to if I can keep up. I haven't done more than ~40km per day for a while and my cardio isn't as good. ...are you gonna try to do 3700+ meters of vertical ascent in one day?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:That's what people tend to do on Mt. Fuji People "tend" to just take a bus or w/e to Shinjuku and do the ascent from there, which is a far more reasonable ~1500m of gain or something like that. Most people doing the whole thing do it in at least 2 days. I'm not saying you can't do* it, but ~12000ft of elevation gain in one day would be considered extremely brutal even for very seasoned individuals, and if you want to make it to the summit for sunrise most of this will be done at night. Anyway I'd strongly advise getting at least a few 2000+ meter cumulative elevation gain days under your belt beforehand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
Seconding Narrows as a must-do if conditions allow. If the water levels are on the high side, and you want to go deep in the canyon (which I recommend if you can) a drysuit rental might be a good idea, although it isn't cheap. Either Angel's landing or Observation point are good short dayhikes with nice views if you have time (I actually prefer the view from the top of observation point but you don't get the woo-woo factor of angel's landing, which can be good or bad depending on your preference). If possible, being in the Narrows on a clearish day around late morning to early afternoon will get you some really spectacular lighting in the slot, it really does look like those fake looking photos. It's best to start early since the narrowest parts are a bit further in. The figure-8 loop is my favorite hike in Bryce. It combines part of the Navajo Loop (including Wall Street), Peakaboo loop, and Queen's Garden in one half-day hike,. If you do that + just drive around and view the canyon from various vantage points you can pretty much do Bryce in a day. For Arches, I really like the primitive loop trail. You can easily drive around and see a lot of the park, then park at the Devil's Garden trailhead and do the primitive loop in a few hours. It isn't much of a "trail" which gives it a fun exploratory feel, and at least when I've went it was much less traveled than some of the other trails that were jam packed walking selfie sticks. In Canyonlands, if you are short on time at the very least just drive around and see some the canyon overlooks, but if you have a bit longer the Needles is a really cool place to explore and has some good hikes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Planning on doing the flattop mountain trail up to Hallett Peak at RMNP tomorrow. I've worn shorts for all of my other hikes, but also haven't been above the treeline much. Will I be ok in shorts with a base layer or should I wear some pants or something? I still need to buy some actual hiking pants. You'll be fine. If you plan on doing a lot of hiking above the treeline, eventually you may want to get some light pants, if for no other reason than making sun protection simpler (or just wear long underwear under your shorts like a pro)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Excellent, I'll go to the local REI, try out a couple, and start using whatever I decide to buy. REI doesn't generally have a great selection of mountaineering boots, often just 1 model of double boots and 2-3 of singles (including lightly or uninsulated summer boots like Trangos), if that. As Braincloud indicated, fit is extremely important and in my experience very unforgiving in these kind of stiff boots. Be prepared to order some online in various sizes and return the ones you don't want, unless you have a shop nearby with a lot of different brands and models. Different models within the same brand often fit very differently (even when made on the same last..), and if the usual La Sportiva and Scarpas don't seem to fit you, don't be afraid to try out other brands like Mammut, Asolo, or Salewa. Also, make sure you get a boot that is suitable for your course. Something like Nepals may not be suitable for a multi day itinerary in Alaska, which will likely require a double boot. Just check with your course info/guides to be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
I replaced my houdini with a BD alpine start for most purposes, and I really like that jacket. I know people like to throw CFM numbers around but it's tough to get reliable vendor specs and or up to date / accurate tests from nerds on BPL. I generally rely on the "put jacket over mouth and nose and try to breath" test and by that metric it's significantly more breathable than the houdini. It's a higher denier fabric, though, so its rain resistance is noticably better than the houdini. I think the reason they can get away with a denser fabric yet better breathability is that it's basically a very light schoeller stretch woven fabric as opposed to the usual nylon windshirt materials. This also means less billowing in the wind and easier sizing for putting over a fleece or w/e. It's "heavy" for a windshirt at around 8 oz, but unless I'm expecting a lot of rain I can just take that jacket + a light insulating jacket as my entire layering system for most trips during the summer, and in colder months I usually keep it on most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Is Mt Whitney a glaciated peak? The Mazamas website thinks so (they require you to have summited a glaciated peak to join) but I can't tell, and it's the only one on the list I've climbed. Mt Whitney does not have any glaciers as such. And in any case none (I'm pretty sure?) of the glaciers that do exist in the Sierra Nevada have crevasses (unless you count the bergschrund) so the usual glacier travel techniques involving crevasse rescue are not used. That being said, there is of course plenty of snow outside of midsummer to early autumn. If you plan to go there when there is snow, familiarity with ice axe and crampons would be a minimum, and if going on any of the class 2-3 routes, familiarity with basic mountaineering (ropes, harness, protection, steep snow travel, basic scrambling, avalanche skills ) would be a good idea despite these being "non-technical" routes. I think asking for a previous summit of a "glaciated peak" is a bit much for e.g. the mountaineer's route at any time of the year, but for a non-summer ascent I think requiring previous general mountaineering experience with ice axe / crampons and winter camping is pretty typical What route are you planning to do and when?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:So I just got a new pair of heavy boots after surviving on hiking shoes after my last pair de-laminated a couple of years ago. Thumb's length is not too much. The larger size will be more comfortable, probably. For walking boots there is generally little reason to downsize unless they are noticeably too big. The whole thing about "don't want your toes to slide forward in too big a shoe" is mostly BS as foot security against sliding is mostly determined by the fit around your instep and a foot that slides in a large boot would mash toes just as bad or worse in a small boot. A larger boot means less precise toe placement and slightly less rigidity, which can matter if e.g. scrambling or pairing with crampons, but if the purpose of the boot is mostly walking/hiking (especially long distances with a heavier pack) then it's definitely better to err on being too large vs. too small. A slightly too small boot can cause you a lot more problems than a slightly too big one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
Your best bet is to contact mountain guides operating in the region and ask them what site gives the most reliable information.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:Oh jeez. I’m just missing you. I’m Dec 25 - 30. You should be able to get local temperature data, for today, to better than a 19F range. Usually when you see numbers all over the place like that, it's because you're checking weather for a mountainous area, and depending on how a particular site integrates and interpolates weather sensor data you may get very different (and wrong) results. The best sites (like NOAAs pinpoint tool) will have some scheme for adjusting weather station and other data based on a terrain and elevation model. For outside the U.S., mountain-forecast.com does an OK job of this and has generally been better for me than many other tools (e.g. google, iOS widget, yr.no). That being said, usually when I go someplace outside the US, there is some local tool that most of the mountain guides or experienced locals use that tends to be best. So I'd still recommend checking with some guide services over there, as they will have a better idea than anyone else. Baring that, if you are just interested in temperature, taking the temperature from a nearby reliable weather station or town, and correcting to the elevation of your campsite by subtracting ~1 degree C per 100 meters, should give you a reasonably good lower bound unless there is a storm.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Anyone have any recommendations on Isle of Skye, or that area of Scotland? Looking for something a bit out of the way, if possible. Seconding Quiraing and Old Man of Storr, they are worth it. There are a few easier munros that are accessible to relatively competent hikers (i.e. involving no-to-easy scrambling and no climbing experience needed, and not too exposed--unlike e.g. the majority of the Cullins). Bla Bheinn is fantastic and relatively easy so long as you are OK with some scree and occasionally putting your hands on the rock for short bits. Even just the part on the path can be very scenic, if you end up deciding not to go all the way up. The summit view is very, very good though. Another relatively easy (albiet longer) option with outstanding views is Sgurr na Stri from Sligachan. No scrambling is required for this route but the last part of the walk is on rough terrain without a real path. As with Bla Bheinn, even if you only go part way I think it is a worthwhile walk. The bar at Sligachan is a nice place to stop an eat/drink. Bruach na Frithe is generally regarded as the easiest peak on the Cullin ridge. As with Sgurr na Stri scrambling is not needed and the route is not really exposed. It's a significantly shorter walk than Sgurr na Stri, with about the same overall level of difficulty, but the view isn't as spectacular imo (though it is still good). For easier walks, there are plenty of hikes along the Trotternish ridge you can do (apart from just Storr and Quiraing), but honestly, I think its overall better to just visit those two and spend more of your time elsewhere unless you are there for a really long time or run out of things to do. The path from Elgol to Camasunary is very scenic and is also an easy walk. Fairy Pools are an extremely easy walk, and it is pretty, but tends to be totally packed with people. This website as a lot of good walks, from very easy to hard: http://www.theskyeguide.com/walking-mainmenu-32 Honestly most of my recommendations are probably from this guy, since we used this site a lot when we visited a couple years ago. I think you could easily spend a week in Skye, no problem. But since you are presumably coming up from either Edinburgh or Glasgow and either way will pass by Ft William, Glencoe is also very scenic with some easier walks, or it can be just a good place to see by car. Probably worth a stop there imo, if the weather is OK.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
snappo posted:Trail runners are great for trails where you don't need to negotiate obstacles, but boots with a sturdy sole on rocky terrain is a must for me. I love being able to put my entire weight on the pointed edge of a rock without a care in the world. I think a lot of it boils down to the nature of the terrain and how you are walking/moving. Stiff, sturdy boots are great for clomping down scree & talus in ways that you can't generally get away with in trainers. They are also nice for steep slippery turf where the stiffer sole lets you hold an edge better. But a shoe with a more flexible, stickier sole, lower volume, and greater sensitivity generally does a better job of letting you place feet precisely in rough or scrambly terrain, and the better ankle flex gives you more options. So for most days in like class 2-4 terrain I prefer approach shoes or similar trainers if I can get away with them (hard steep snow or cold being the big reason I can't). And anything much past that, people usually break out the rock shoes if they can, which probably says something about the merits of more minimal footwear in rocky terrain :P But there is really no right answer especially when it comes to stiffness vs softness of a sole. I think the best approach is to not worry too much about what other people tell you and just try things until you figure out what works for you. Shoes/boots don't last that long so you'll get plenty of opportunities to dial things in over time. The only situation where stiff boots are really required is in I'd say the main reason myself and other people tend to recommend trainers for many long distance trails is they are just a hell of a lot easier to dry. I got some light mountaineering boots soaked last weekend in a stream crossing, and the loving things were still damp 3 days later (and smell like complete rear end). Spending days on the trail with damp, stank rear end boots sucks and is rougher on your feet than just about anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
N'thing poles. Apart from saving your knees on steep descents and giving you an extra point (or two) of contact on rough terrain, they are indispensable for stream crossings. These days the matter of "poles or no" is pretty much settled, it's just a question if you want to carry one or two (I usually just take one). If you get a trekking pole supported shelter but don't to or can't use your trekking poles for it (e.g. because you are base camping and want to leave your tent up while you hike elsewhere, or because you have one pole but the shelter needs two), you can get collapsible shelter poles that are plenty strong and weigh only 1-3 oz, which is really nothing. Zpacks and MLD both sell these but Zpacks are much cheaper, I think (maybe not if you consider they are selling poles for 2x pole shelters while MLD are usually 1 pole shelters). For down sleeping bags I highly recommend looking online for 2nd hand stuff. Properly cared for down lasts a really long time and there are lots of people selling mint condition down sleeping bags / quilts for often sharp discounts. https://lwhiker.com/used-gear-search is a pretty good search engine that indexes a lot of the more popular gear swap forums/sites/subreddits. For the ~20F range you are targeting I am a big fan of quilts vs mummy bags; you may want to consider the pros and cons and see if they make sense. Also worth noting is that for temperatures around or just below freezing, inadequate sleeping pad R value is probably the main cause of people sleeping cold, and this can't really be remedied by a warmer sleeping bag or clothes. An R-value of at least 3 may be a good idea, and you'll probably be noticeably more comfortable with an R4-5 pad if temperatures get to below freezing at night.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
I mean, for sustained wet conditions, a goretex sock + trail runner is pretty much strictly inferior to just a waterproof boot. Goretex and other WPB membranes aren't magic--they have to obey the laws of thermodynamics--and if you've got a soaking wet trail runner surrounding a goretex sock (that is also wet on the outside), then there is no water concentration gradient to support diffusion from the inside of the sock to the outside. And with only a thin trail runner "insulating" the thin waterproof sock, there won't be much of a temperature gradient either. Water can not diffuse from the inside of a waterproof sock to the outside unless there is a concentration gradient (wetter inside the goretex sock than outside) or a temperature gradient (significantly warmer inside than outside)--ideally both. This is a hard thermodynamic limitation that can not be overcome by materials design, at least not without compromising waterproofness. Incidentally, this is also why a waterproof jacket stops breathing well after the DWR coating on the outside "wets out". So basically, while a goretex sock may stop water from getting in, it will not be able to breath for poo poo if surrounded by a wet shoe. And unlike a boot, where breathability limitations will result in a (usually minor in cold weather) buildup of moisture inside the insulation/fabric of the inner that can later be vented and dried e.g. by putting inside a sleeping bag or other dry and warm place, with a goretex sock all of that excess moisture stays right on the skin of your foot or your socks. Wet feet plus cold weather is really not a winning combination. Now for extremely cold conditions, some people use a waterproof sock as a vapor barrier layer (VBL), but this is to prevent the gradual buildup of internal moisture from degrading the warmth of a boot's insulation. But the only conditions where VBLs make sense would be MUCH too cold to get by with just trail runners, and they only make sense when using insulated & waterproof footwear. In any case, a simple plastic (fully waterproof, not breathable) liner performs just as well and is much less expensive than a WPB/goretex one in that application.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Poles aren't really there to improve traction and it's hard to see how they could do a very good job at that. Their main utility is just to take a bit of load off your knees/legs on descent and to provide an additional point of contact or two on terrain where that might be useful. I'm not sure cost is a big factor since you can get decent quality poles for pretty cheap (compared to the cost of jackets, shoes, etc). For the height thing. most pole grips are designed so you can choke up on them comfortably if you need to. Personally I'm fine using one length setting for decent, and another for everything else. One thing I will acknowledge is that pole usage is not a substitute for proper foot placement and technique, and on steeper or rougher ground you sometimes see people adopting really awkward and imbalanced postures (like center of gravity far away from either foot) using their poles as a crutch. Apart from being a good way to fall down, this is really rough on poles. It's also true that poles are not really a substitute for developing the stabilizer muscles around your knees/quads, which are really indispensable for efficiency and balance, especially on descent. So, there is something to be said for making sure you know how to move properly without poles so as not to misuse them when they come along. But I don't really think that's a good enough argument for not bringing a pole or two. You can learn proper movement and strengthen the right muscles hiking with poles just as easy as without, so may as well take them. Either way, it's not like poles make a massive difference. Everyone's preferences are different, and if you find they aren't helping you then that's one less thing to bring.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I miss the old school longbeards hiking with wizard poles. Some of my earliest backpacking memories is running into what I'm assuming are old hippies with something out of a D&D adventure manual. Decathlon or Cotswold I guess? There are several hiking/climbing gear shops in Ft William if you pass through there on the way up. I saw a (single) pole of some sort on sale for 6 GBP in Nevisport there a few weeks ago, although that's kind of unusual. You probably shouldn't have any difficulty finding some for 30-40 GBP, maybe less if you look around.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:~8 days with a Sony A7R3. I have one spare battery, and I will be occupied enough to not be shooting all day. So while I might get away without a charger, if there is a cheap, compact, and simple option to charge one battery during the trip, I would probably pack it just for insurance. You can get small and very light USB battery chargers for pretty cheap (generally specific to the batteries for your particular camera), and those are in turn easy to charge via a large travel battery or a solar charger. For 8 days, one of those Anker power packs or similar travel battery is probably the simplest and most time/weight/volume efficient option. You can get a nominal 10,000 mAh unit that weighs 6-7 oz that should be enough for 8 days on a mirrorless camera if you take 2 fully charged batteries to start. This isn't as elegant as direct USB charging but it has worked fine for me. Are you gonna be backpacking for 8 days or will you have access to a car? Cause USB battery charger + car is easiest of all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Heners_UK posted:Since moving to Canada I wonder how anyone ever gets anywhere. This is why I'm trying to update my local OSM. Caltopo.com allegedly works well for Canada, although I haven't tried it myself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:No car. Also, what if I cannot charge by USB? My camera does not support it, so I have to remove the battery and place it in a charger that only has a 110V connector. Is there a solar powered charger that has a 110V output? Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FF3HW5F/ref=sspa_dk_hqp_detail_aax_0?psc=1 Plus a 10,000 mAh travel battery is what I usually use. These kind of USB battery chargers generally work well with solar chargers also.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
khysanth posted:Alltrails is good. A lot of my favorite hikes have come from doing just this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Bear hangs are poo poo and don't really work in places that see somewhat regular backcountry use. A persistent and knowledgeable bear will defeat even many "proper" bear hangs, and in locations where people routinely hang food, the bears will have learned the effort is worth it. They also take forever to set up properly, simply can't be set up in many places (especially in exposed / above timberline terrain where, you know, you ought to be spending most of your time if you are really worried about accidentally surprising a bear). A lil' sami bear canister weighs 1lb 12oz. Considering the weight savings of using the lid as your cook pot (~4-6oz) , and not having to bring ~50' of cord for a bear hang (~4 oz), the net weight is just around 1 extra pound--less if you use a heavy duty / odor proof sack for your bear hangs like an ursack + opsack. The volume is small enough to easily fit into any pack also. Only down side is paying like $90 for a stupid plastic barrel. Considering how much time they save vs. having to gently caress around with a counter-weighted hang and finding The One True Branch, and the enormously greater campsite flexibility they allow, I think there is little reason not to take a small bear canister if there is any concern about bears.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Tacier posted:I finally bought a backpack and I'm wondering if it fits right. There seems to be a lot of space between the pack and the middle/upper part of my back. My torso measurement is in between M and L, so I went with a M. Thoughts? lol i knew what pack that was immediately from your photo. The problem isn't the torso length, it's that the pack (and Gregory packs in general) has an aggressive ~*~lumbar support~*~ or some such bullshit that inevitably causes a large standoff between the pack and your upper back / shoulders, unless you are Quasimodo. I would not recommend trying to compensate for this by over-tightening the shoulders or (even worse) shortening the torso length. You see how the back panel/padding juts out to meet your lower back? That's why there is a gap further up. The same thing would happen if you took a normal pack and stuck a water bottle or something between the pack and your lower back. I believe this "feature" is removable or otherwise adjustable in this and other Gregory packs, but I never really used one so I'm not positive. If not, maybe try a pack with a less pronounced (or no) lumbar arch. Some people really like the lumbar support, others hate it. Personally I think there are good biomechanic reasons to NOT put that kind of arch in a pack, but it's really up to personal preference. But the bottom line is that if the arch of the lumbar support in the pack doesn't match the curvature of your back, you are not going to be able to get a really flush fit unless you compensate by pulling the top of the pack forward (e.g. by tightening shoulders), and this will put more weight on your shoulders/less on your hips.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
lavaca posted:Hey Canadians, I had the brilliant idea to join MEC over the weekend. Is there anything I can buy there that's notably cheaper or better than its REI equivalent? MEC T3 is a great lightweight fleece jacket. It's very similar to and basically equivalent with a Patagonia R1. And at half the price of an R1 I think it's the best lightweight fleece out there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Approach shoes anyone? I love the TX3s. They hike as well or better than the LS trail runners I used to use, are perfect for class 4 stuff in the sierras, and can climb easy 5th fine. Just bear in mind that ideal sizing for a hiking shoe will be larger than ideal sizing for climbing in them, so you'll have to decide how you want to compromise there. Personally I like to size approach shoes for a comfortable toe box while hiking, but that necessarily means performance on small footholds is going to be compromised. For class 3/4/easy 5th alpine scrambling stuff that really doesn't matter, though, and that's where these kind of shoes shine. For anything technical enough where you are carrying a rope & rack, the additional weight of proper rock shoes is trivial, so I don't stress too much about technical performance of approach shoes. They work great at what they are intended for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Nah years like this are the best! By June there will be plenty of routes where the approach is mostly snow free, and the snow itself will have gone through enough melt/freeze cycles to be perfect for crampons (and firm enough you don't need to haul snowshoes). A lot of the easier semi-technical gully routes (Mt. Thompson, Dana Couloir, North Peak, Matterhorn Peak) will be in good shape most of the summer/fall Even non-technical routes like those up Banner Peak or Conness are way more fun when there is plenty of snow (as opposed to tedious talus slogs). In fact most of the class 2/3 passes will be transformed from ScreeFuck 9000 into exciting alpine adventures for at least most of the early summer. Just bring crampons/axe and have a blast. Besides, it's not Real Mountaineering(TM) if you don't have an ice axe. Morbus fucked around with this message at 21:30 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
I just throw everything into an old allergy pill bottle, but if you want to keep lots of different pills separate, I saw someone who had 3-4 different small plastic test tubes (with caps) and put several pills of each time in a separate tube.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
incogneato posted:How do people go about planning camping spots along trails you haven't hiked before? So far we've mostly backpacked trails we had previously day-hiked (so knew where spots might be) or to lakes where we could assume there are spots. Is there a good source for these (such as an app or website) for trails that aren't the PCT/AT? For me it's usually some combination of: 1. Looking at trip reports / gps tracks of other people who have hiked in that area or on that trail to get an idea of where common camp spots are. 2. Asking the ranger when picking up my permit 3. Just looking at the topo map for flat areas in walking distance of water and hoping for the best I don't usually plan in advance where exactly I'm going to camp. Instead I'll just have a general idea of what regions might be OK, and aim to be near one or more of them by the end of the day. T I'll keep a mental note (or gps waypoint) of potential camping spots I see and just keep walking. When I'm finished hiking, I'll either settle down someplace nearby, or backtrack to the last spot I thought was OK. Often when I'm at the top of or descending the last pass for the day, I'll have a really clear view of all the terrain ahead and below, and from there can easily identify decent camp spots (or tell what flat looking areas on the map are in fact lovely boulder fields). Just yolo'ing it works pretty well most of the time, as long as you have a rough idea of the terrain and plan your day so you aren't on top of a mountain when it gets dark.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
It was mentioned earlier this page but caltopo.com is really great. Outside the US, options are generally less good, less integrated, and not free, since they do not benefit from our superior socialist* system. *but only for maps
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Alamoduh posted:I need a recommendation for custom length tent poles. https://www.questoutfitters.com/tent_poles.htm Sells components for DIY tent poles, pretty cheap. The aluminum ones come in 13", 18" or 26" segments. Carbon fiber only comes in 17-18". You could also try just buying new end pieces, cut the existing poles, and re-cord them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Has anyone ITT rented a satellite phone? My initial search to find a place to rent has yielded unclear results, so I dont know if this is a common thing people do? What do you want one for, and any reason you need/want a satellite phone instead of just an InReach? Much cheaper, smaller, lighter, rugged, doubles as a PLB, and uses the same satellite network as the best phones, and supports 2-way text messaging. Unless you really need phone conversation for some reason I would think this is a better option. For remote/wilderness use I think your best option is the Iridium constellation. Geostationary (i.e. Inmarsat) networks don't do well in a lot of steep terrain (also useless at high/low latitudes, if that matters). Iridium has global coverage and good reliability, but since it's a LEO constellation occasional call drops are pretty common (though usually you can get right back on shortly). Globalstar is similar, but coverage may not be as complete. Satellite phones are expensive. Renting one for a few days, you can generally expect to pay at least $100 for a very basic 30-60 minutes, rented over a few days or a week. You can maaaaaybe rent one for $20-50 total if you only use like 15 minutes...but if you don't need a fair number of actual voice conversation minutes then, again, why not just use an InReach? If you need a satelite phone for data then just lol have fun $$$$$$
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
incogneato posted:Popular national parks in the off season are the best. I've done Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Zion, and Arches in winter months. Each time the worst you'll find is half-full parking lots for a popular viewpoint, but usually far less. Head a little ways down a trail and you may not see anyone at all for long stretches. January or thereabouts is hands down the best time to visit Death Valley. Generally cool/pleasant weather, clear skies, low angle sun, and surprisingly not that many people. Plus it's just oppressively hot after like February. I go there pretty much every year around that time. Renting a jeep to go to Racetrack or other offroads is fun, so seconding that. For stuff that doesn't require a 4wd, there are a lot of canyons that you can hike to that are really cool but don't have trails, so they see hardly any people. You can find information about them online though. Kaleidoscope canyon is definitely my favorite and it's pretty unique. Funeral, Palmer, Fall, Sidewinder, and Room canyons are also cool. You'll want a GPS, compass, and map to get to these, but the routefinding isn't hard and they aren't too far from roads you can just park on the side of. The trail/loop from Golden canyon to Zabriskie point and back is really good (though it sees more traffic), and Zabriskie point at sunrise is beautiful. Edit: winter is really the best time to go visit desert stuff in Nevada and Arizona too, imo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
Electoral Surgery posted:My hiking/climbing pants are getting too blown out to sew up again. I’d appreciate any suggestions that fit these criteria: Arcteryx gamma LT work well with a harness (including harness compatible pockets), and have a somewhat more athletic cut compared to a lot of hiking pants. They aren't as breathable as most of pranas pants but are substantially more water resistant (I like them a lot in snow). They are made from a thin but stretchy softshell material with a built in adjustable webbing belt. They are arcteryx, and therefore way too loving expensive at full retail price, but if you can find a deal they may be worth looking at. In terms of durability, the fabric is pretty thin but mine have held up pretty OK for ~18 months now. They are by no means super durable, though. I got one small hole that I patched in the butt from a pretty short glisade in rough/not so great snow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hey hiking goons, can I get some advice on how the gently caress to buy well fitting hiking boots? How rigid are the uppers on these boots and how stiff vs. flexible are the soles? Ideally, to prevent heel blisters, you would minimize heel slip (your heel sliding up the back of the boot when you walk, especially uphill). And to do this, you need a well fitting heel cup and more importantly a really securely fitting instep so that when your boots are laced your foot is prevented from sliding up. In practice, finding a pair of boots that fits your heel and instep well enough to eliminate heel slip, while also fitting your toes well, is really hard. Flexible soled boots will bend with your foot as you walk, while stiff soled boots will force your heel to slide up inside the boot. So protip #1 for reducing heel blisters is to pick boots with as flexible soles as possible Boots with stiff/rigid uppers (especially around the heel cup) will cause more friction when your heel does slip, so protip #2 is to pick boots with soft/flexible uppers. Unless you really need stiffer boots for snow/ice and crampon compatibility, just getting flexible soled, soft boots that fit comfortably will go a long way to avoiding heel blisters. If you already are using flexible soled and soft boots, and they are causing problems, you can try to gauge heel slip by walking up stairs or standing with your toes on a step or ledge and raising/lowering yourself with your calves. But in general, I've found there is no good way to gauge heel problems besides taking boots for a hike. My personal experience is that, for sufficiently flexible and soft boots that are comfortably sized, heel blisters aren't a problem, whereas for stiffer boots even the tiniest problem can completely flay my heels after a mile.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2019 04:58
|
|