Camping How

Question:

You forget our gov. never pays near cost for ANYTHING. Our bidding process ensures grossly inflated prices for everything. :-{ Especially when discussing military purposes, the 1400.00 toilets and 700.00 hammers are a running joke here

Spoken like a person who has no experience with government procurement, but probably watches 60 Minutes a lot. Before spouting off half-truths and innuendos, try checking a few facts. They’re not hard to come by, especially with few minutes on an internet search. — Harry Andreas the engineering raconteur replace baloney with computer to reply

Response:

Doesn’t the job always go to the highest bidder <G? Regards, Jeff ——- / #[||||||]# * * Jeff Schwartz It’s a JEEP thing, of course! ‘97 JGC LTD. Remove ‘nospam’ from my email address. I may not be as good as I once was but I am as good once as I ever was! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You forget our gov. never pays near cost for ANYTHING. Our bidding process ensures grossly inflated prices for everything. :-{ Especially when discussing military purposes, the 1400.00 toilets and 700.00 hammers are a running joke here Must be a very strange procurement system over in the USA when your special forces are not given the most suitable vehicle for the job. Surely if the governments buying the vehicle from an American company the difference in price cant be that big. I’ve managed to find the article on exercise magnum spirit, out of 97 NATO teams standard LR’s came 1st 2nd and 3rd. The competition included Hummers, VW’s and Mercedes 230G’s. The British teams were not even using Defender XD’s. As to the supposition that LR’s have a quarter of the load of a Hummer, take a look at a Pink Panther (strange colour) or the new XD’s. Can anybody suggest a good site for getting info on military vehicles, stats etc.? In the end the only argument that I can put forward for LR’s is that your Army purchased them, we didn’t buy Hummers for our elite forces.

Response:

JC; Only that it is paid for my LR.

: <snipIf the Hummer was really : better all around than the LR, the Camel trophy races would consist of : Hummers. : JC :)

Response:

army hummers will only run on diesel fuel only, anything else ruins the injector, and pump. they are not a multi-fuel engine. if the oil pan gets a hoe in it and all the oil drains out your walking, the engine siezed due to the lack of oil. the engine is a detuned 6.2 or the new 6.5l with out a turbo.

Response:

This would be a matter of wheather you are looking for brute force off roading or finesse(sp?), The hummer is great at blasting through small trees and shrubbery and bouncing over ditches and flying off the top of hills and such. The LR is a much better vehicle for careful trail and off trail navagation where getting there safely and with as little damage to the terain as possible is desired. If the Hummer was really better all around than the LR, the Camel trophy races would consist of Hummers. JC :) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth, wyd did the path finders purchase Land Rovers? And in a off road competition between drivers from around NATO the Hummer teams were wipped by a Defender 110. I understand the Hummer has 2 bad features: 1. high cost 2. wider than normal

Response:

The other main difference besides the armor is that the Army Hummers can run without oil. The engine is designed in a way that if the oil pan is shot, and all the oil escapes, the HUmmer will still make it back to base.

They must be using AMSOIL (LOL) or maybe PROLONG!!!

Response:

the army only has a very few armored hummers and 99% of them are in use in bosnia. each up armored hummer cost the taxpayer $184,000 the basic hummer is not armored at all some of them have composite doors that if your lucky would stop a 223 round and they are heavy 3 tons for your basic and all the way up to 6 tons for the armored variant. a good off road truck not fast at all but does get the job done that a jeep would die trying (payload only) the jeep will out turn a hummer. i know about them i work on them every day.

Response:

Actually the army hummers are very different. The main difference between the civilian Hummers and the Army Hmmwvs is that the army ones are designed to run off any type of fuel, gas, kerosene, pertroleum, even propane. So whereever they are, in whatever country they are in, they will run. The other main difference besides the armor is that the Army Hummers can run without oil. The engine is designed in a way that if the oil pan is shot, and all the oil escapes, the HUmmer will still make it back to base. Matt

Response:

Was meant as an off-handed comment with no reality in mind, as the reference to the "joke" would illustrate. But, someone always has to FLAME-IN Shawn B. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sheesh, what a grouch. Well, I thought it was phunny, Jeff. -chris {:^) You forget our gov. never pays near cost for ANYTHING. Our bidding process ensures grossly inflated prices for everything. :-{ Especially when discussing military purposes, the 1400.00 toilets and 700.00 hammers are a running joke here Spoken like a person who has no experience with government procurement, but probably watches 60 Minutes a lot. Before spouting off half-truths and innuendos, try checking a few facts. They’re not hard to come by, especially with few minutes on an internet search. — Harry Andreas the engineering raconteur replace baloney with computer to reply

Response:

: I can’t say for sure… but I heard that the army’s hummers are not quite the : same as the civilian version. I heard that the army’s hummers are very very : heavy due to the fact that they are armored. It its a question between speed : and performance vs protection…. the army puts the safety of the army : personel in it first. If its true…I’d like to see how well a Defender 110 : holds up in the middle of a fire fight… : With that said…I still don’t think the Civilian version of the Hummer is the : best. The basic Hummer / HMMWV is the same. Only the trans is different – mil. does not have a park in the transmission / 24 volt not 12 volt. The armored Hummer is a little heavyer. Then again, the heavy hummer/hmmwv is another model all together. Most are the lighter duity Hummers. : -J : If the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth, wyd did the path finders : purchase Land Rovers? And in a off road competition between drivers from : around NATO the Hummer teams were wipped by a Defender 110. Dont get me rong : the LR isnt the best 4X4 on earth but its a good place to start if you want : to build one (judging by the number of armys that use them for Special OP’s : use). : : Best regards Jon (newby to the list) : : : Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth : : s are too big and underpowered to be of any use to anyone except rich : guys with an edipius complex that wanna show off the opressive american : military machine. : : best vechicle’s on earth is probally the horse drawn wagon or a bycicle or : a : moped or a 67 bettle. : :

Response:

Sheesh, what a grouch. Well, I thought it was phunny, Jeff. -chris {:^) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You forget our gov. never pays near cost for ANYTHING. Our bidding process ensures grossly inflated prices for everything. :-{ Especially when discussing military purposes, the 1400.00 toilets and 700.00 hammers are a running joke here Spoken like a person who has no experience with government procurement, but probably watches 60 Minutes a lot. Before spouting off half-truths and innuendos, try checking a few facts. They’re not hard to come by, especially with few minutes on an internet search. — Harry Andreas the engineering raconteur replace baloney with computer to reply

Response:

I can’t say for sure… but I heard that the army’s hummers are not quite the same as the civilian version. I heard that the army’s hummers are very very heavy due to the fact that they are armored. It its a question between speed and performance vs protection…. the army puts the safety of the army personel in it first. If its true…I’d like to see how well a Defender 110 holds up in the middle of a fire fight… With that said…I still don’t think the Civilian version of the Hummer is the best. -J – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth, wyd did the path finders purchase Land Rovers? And in a off road competition between drivers from around NATO the Hummer teams were wipped by a Defender 110. Dont get me rong the LR isnt the best 4X4 on earth but its a good place to start if you want to build one (judging by the number of armys that use them for Special OP’s use). Best regards Jon (newby to the list) Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth s are too big and underpowered to be of any use to anyone except rich guys with an edipius complex that wanna show off the opressive american military machine. best vechicle’s on earth is probally the horse drawn wagon or a bycicle or a moped or a 67 bettle.

Response:

Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth

Ok, I’ll nibble at the flame bait. Yes, I DISAGREE that the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth. …lars

Response:

I agree with 67 Beattle. Durable, easy to repair and available to everyone at a great price. With proper offroad mods they compete with the Hummers in the deserts.

Response:

OK…I’ll take the flame bait too….. Its all based on your definition of "best" But IMHO, NO. Yeh its got the clearance…but dang thing is just too wide…. not to mention its heavy. The biggest problem I have with it is the price. A die hard offroadie would be better off buying something like a CJ7 or a YJ (or any other truck for that matter). Spend less than 10,000 on the initial buy and they go ahead and spend another 30,000 on suspension systems, etc…. The final vehicle would still be less than the cost of a Hummer and perform at par if not better than the Hummer off and on the road. But i still have to admit…the Hummer is one tough competitor… I have a YJ(93) I bought new…love and still loving it…now all I need is the 30,000 and I will be set….hehe. Yeh…that will never happen… J – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – –WebTV-Mail-83867433-67891 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth –WebTV-Mail-83867433-67891 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit <html<embed src="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/ram/kioc.ram" autostart true</embed</html <audioscope height=60 width=200 bgcolor=191919 rightoffset=8 leftoffset=-8 rightcolor=red leftcolor=gold border=10 <html<body background="http://marketwizz.com/backgrounds/30.gif" text=white</html –WebTV-Mail-83867433-67891–

Response:

If the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth, wyd did the path finders purchase Land Rovers? And in a off road competition between drivers from around NATO the Hummer teams were wipped by a Defender 110. Dont get me rong the LR isnt the best 4X4 on earth but its a good place to start if you want to build one (judging by the number of armys that use them for Special OP’s use). Best regards Jon (newby to the list) Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth

s are too big and underpowered to be of any use to anyone except rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -guys with an edipius complex that wanna show off the opressive american military machine. best vechicle’s on earth is probally the horse drawn wagon or a bycicle or a moped or a 67 bettle.

Response:

: If the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth, wyd did the path finders : purchase Land Rovers? And in a off road competition between drivers from : around NATO the Hummer teams were wipped by a Defender 110. Dont get me rong : the LR isnt the best 4X4 on earth but its a good place to start if you want : to build one (judging by the number of armys that use them for Special OP’s : use). Because they did not have the cash to pay for them? Because you can get a limp LR for 1/2 the cost but carry 1/4 of the weight. I understand a lot of the recon teams use the 502 super hummer. : Best regards Jon (newby to the list)

: : Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth : : s are too big and underpowered to be of any use to anyone except rich : guys with an edipius complex that wanna show off the opressive american : military machine. : : best vechicle’s on earth is probally the horse drawn wagon or a bycicle or : a : moped or a 67 bettle.

Response:

If the Hummer is the best vehicle on earth, wyd did the path finders purchase Land Rovers? And in a off road competition between drivers from around NATO the Hummer teams were wipped by a Defender 110.

I understand the Hummer has 2 bad features: 1. high cost 2. wider than normal

Response:

Must be a very strange procurement system over in the USA when your special forces are not given the most suitable vehicle for the job. Surely if the governments buying the vehicle from an American company the difference in price cant be that big. I’ve managed to find the article on exercise magnum spirit, out of 97 NATO teams standard LR’s came 1st 2nd and 3rd. The competition included Hummers, VW’s and Mercedes 230G’s. The British teams were not even using Defender XD’s. As to the supposition that LR’s have a quarter of the load of a Hummer, take a look at a Pink Panther (strange colour) or the new XD’s. Can anybody suggest a good site for getting info on military vehicles, stats etc.? In the end the only argument that I can put forward for LR’s is that your Army purchased them, we didn’t buy Hummers for our elite forces.

Response:

You forget our gov. never pays near cost for ANYTHING. Our bidding process ensures grossly inflated prices for everything. :-{ Especially when discussing military purposes, the 1400.00 toilets and 700.00 hammers are a running joke here – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Must be a very strange procurement system over in the USA when your special forces are not given the most suitable vehicle for the job. Surely if the governments buying the vehicle from an American company the difference in price cant be that big. I’ve managed to find the article on exercise magnum spirit, out of 97 NATO teams standard LR’s came 1st 2nd and 3rd. The competition included Hummers, VW’s and Mercedes 230G’s. The British teams were not even using Defender XD’s. As to the supposition that LR’s have a quarter of the load of a Hummer, take a look at a Pink Panther (strange colour) or the new XD’s. Can anybody suggest a good site for getting info on military vehicles, stats etc.? In the end the only argument that I can put forward for LR’s is that your Army purchased them, we didn’t buy Hummers for our elite forces.

Response:

Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth

I dunno….what does the word ‘best’ mean?

Response:

–WebTV-Mail-83867433-67891 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth

Define "best"!!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —WebTV-Mail-83867433-67891 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit <html<embed src="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/ram/kioc.ram" autostart true</embed</html <audioscope height=60 width=200 bgcolor=191919 rightoffset=8 leftoffset=-8 rightcolor=red leftcolor=gold border=10 <html<body background="http://marketwizz.com/backgrounds/30.gif" text=white</html –WebTV-Mail-83867433-67891–

Response:

Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth

Response:

Anyone disagree that the hummer is the best vehicle on earth

guys with an edipius complex that wanna show off the opressive american military machine. best vechicle’s on earth is probally the horse drawn wagon or a bycicle or a moped or a 67 bettle.

Response:

: I’f you’re neer Colorado, MedVed hummer is selling off their 1995’s : that they didnt sell for $20,000 (4 door hard top) For $20k or for $20k off list?

I called and checked (after wiping the drool off the phone). It was, unfortunately, 20K OFF list, making the cheapest one about 65K, according to the salesman.

Response:

What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the price of a loaded one right now.Thanx

Beware, as a Hummer can be VERY expensive to fuel, insure, and maintain. Many members of the Hummer mailing list have posted their true cost of ownership, and the numbers were shocking. It’s kind of like a yacht, the purchase price isn’t the true cost-the maintenance is! Glenn Turner

Response:

What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the price of a loaded one right now.Thanx Beware, as a Hummer can be VERY expensive to fuel, insure, and maintain. Many members of the Hummer mailing list have posted their true cost of ownership, and the numbers were shocking. It’s kind of like a yacht, the purchase price isn’t the true cost-the maintenance is! Glenn Turner

Gleen, You have a good point, but another point is that almost all (if not all) would not trade their Hummers for anything (except a newer Hummer). Most of the: Fuel: Diesel Fuel is way overpriced currently. My Fuel bill for the Hummer is $35 per week. My Eclipse bill is $23 per week. Insurance: Same price as my 1996 Eclipse Turbo (1996 Turbo Hummer) Eclipse Price: 28K w/o options – tax Hummer Price: 64K w/o options – tax Maintenance: Almost everything is cover under warranty. If you goto a dealer for any oil change, you will be screewed, like every other car / truck dealer does. When this warranty is over, I will do all the service on my Hummer. Most of us, do our own work.

Response:

Hey Tom, Like most guys in Jeeps, seeing a Hummer always grabs my attention. How do you park them in regular parking lot spaces? It seems like parking

99% of the parking spots are fine for a Hummer. I have only been in one place that their parking spots were too small… make that two. A mall in San Jose, CA was too small… so I used the Valet parking and made them worry about it! When it got back, I check for dents that was not already there (from off-roading). The other place was at Pacific Bell, in San Romon, CA. They had 10,000 employees in a building (and parking lot) that was designed for 6,000 people. I had a hard time parking my Eclipse in those spots… lot spaces are getting so small that even a standard sized American car is getting hard to park in some parking lots. Are Hummers difficult to parallel park without them sticking way out into the street? How are

Oh no… they are easy to do… drive over the curb until half of the body is over the curb… then cut hard back into the street! :) – kidding… They are not too hard… just like parking a full sized pickup, with a long bed. The front wheels are very close to the front part… darn near the bumper. The rear wheels are very close to the rear bumper. they in heavy traffic or twisty mountain roads? I’m just curious since

Traffic is not a problem too… even in N. CA. There are a few people…. that are jerks, that would like to cut you off, because they don’t want to get behind you. Like tonight, this jerk cut me off with three inches to spare from his rear bumer to my front bumper. This was at speeds 60 MPH. That guy came very close to death (a little closer, and he would been under a large tire). Highway 17 that goes from Santa Cruz to San Jose goes over the mountains, and very twisty. I can maintain speed with little problems. I can keep up with a most people, include a friend who is a speed demon. they are so wide! Thanks!

They are wide.. but that is a big advantage for corners, and angles. It goes against you when you are on very very narrow streets like in San Francisco. It takes about a week of driving to get used to the feel of driving something that is that wide… but I love taking it camping almost every weekend. No tents needed, this ape has a ton of space :) Also you really should get a Turbo for a Hummer. Non-Turbo Hummers are slow like a delivery truck. My Hummer can do zero to sixty in 20 seconds. I don’t think that is too bad for a 7,200 pound ape. The Non-Turbo Hummers will do it in 30 seconds. The 502 Super Hummer conversion will do it in 15 seconds. –tlf 96 Turbo Diesel Hummer Wagon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Jerry — NOTE: To reply, remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address. Jerry Bransford PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY The Zen hotdog… make me one with everything!

Response:

: I’f you’re neer Colorado, MedVed hummer is selling off their 1995’s : that they didnt sell for $20,000 (4 door hard top) For $20k or for $20k off list? Ron Miller

I must appologize, I misread the add, $20,000 off list.

Response:

Would the owner of the Hummer tell me what type tires come with it and the size ..thanks..manufacture also.. willis… 94 ZJ V8 (RED) 95 Crewcab F-350 4×4 2 tone gray, red int, 33×12.50×16.5 BFG A/T’s

Response:

The price of maintenance is shocking. In the Army, the Hummer’s required very little repairs and we ran them hard. Sometimes for weeks on end. Every day we did our preventive maintenance though. Checked fluids, belts, and major things. This helped catch any small problems before they became big ones. I find it really hard to believe that a vehicle built this well would require anything more than a little time and know how for maintaining it.

Three points: 1. Civilian owners typically don’t perform PMCS. This is the big one. 2. Civilian trucks have a lot of poorly-tested civvie rubbish (e.g. air conditioners) bolted onto them. Most warranty failures take place here. 3. Post ‘94 civilian trucks don’t have a governor limiting them to 55mph, resulting in greater driveline vibration as civvie pilots go blowing down the freeway at 75-80mph. There’s also a near-monopoly on parts and service by the civilian dealerships, with the resulting predictable effect on the price of said parts and service. If you have the good fortune to live near an honest and competent dealership, fine and good; but if you don’t, … — Ben Goetter, Angry Graycat Designs http://www.angrygraycat.com/goetter/

Response:

What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the price of a loaded one right now.Thanx

The *cheapest* I have ever seen a hummer was at MedVed this last Friday, they’re selling off their 95 and 96 hummers for $20,000 (4 door hard top, and MedVed is in Colorado.). As for Off-roading, It *IS* a bit large for some of the more constricting trails, so you may want to keep that in mind. A few of the other myths about the hummer: Is a Hummer submursible? No, not really. You can put a snorkle on that will raise its fording depth dramatically, but it is not submursible. Does a Hummer float? Definatly not. Does a Hummer come with Bulletproof plating/Kevlar armour? Definatly not. Another thing to watch for is the Breakover angle, It’s not *BAD* by any means, but it’s not *great* either. Thats one of two things I’ve ever heard Hummer owners complaining about. (Luckily, it’s pretty well protected from rocks ripping into the bottom and so on, but it’s still annoying). Also, keep in mind, this is a VERY large vehicle for most off-roading. One of the reasons the old Bronco’s and CJ’s are so popular is because they are quite small by comparison, easily manuevered on a trail.

Response:

: I’f you’re neer Colorado, MedVed hummer is selling off their 1995’s : that they didnt sell for $20,000 (4 door hard top) For $20k or for $20k off list? Ron Miller

Response:

Beware, as a Hummer can be VERY expensive to fuel, insure, and maintain. Many members of the Hummer mailing list have posted their true cost of ownership, and the numbers were shocking. It’s kind of like a yacht, the purchase price isn’t the true cost-the maintenance is!

The price of maintenance is shocking. In the Army, the Hummer’s required very little repairs and we ran them hard. Sometimes for weeks on end. Every day we did our preventive maintenance though. Checked fluids, belts, and major things. This helped catch any small problems before they became big ones. I find it really hard to believe that a vehicle built this well would require anything more than a little time and know how for maintaining it. — SIGNED:: Joseph Anthony Lukas still shopping born in Pheonix raised by wolves dropped on head as a child

Response:

What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the price of a loaded one right now.Thanx

You can get a 1997 2 door starting at $40K or so. Check out http://www.kbb.com for complete prices. DJG http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/2954

Response:

What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the price of a loaded one right now.Thanx You can get a 1997 2 door starting at $40K or so. Check out http://www.kbb.com for complete prices. DJG http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/2954

I’f you’re neer Colorado, MedVed hummer is selling off their 1995’s that they didnt sell for $20,000 (4 door hard top)

Response:

: What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want : one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the : price of a loaded one right now.Thanx My 1996 Hummer Wagon, base priced was $62K. The more doors and roof you want, the more they cost. A wagon cost the most, since it has the most roof – doors. If you want a "new" Hummer, but is a 1995 model, you can bring the base model wagon price down. Eg. 1994 (new) is low 50ies. –tlf

Response:

What kind of price would a very base model Hummer go for? I REALLY want one(to go offroad) but am a little low on cash. I can’t quite swing the price of a loaded one right now.Thanx

Response:

Hey Tom, Like most guys in Jeeps, seeing a Hummer always grabs my attention. How do you park them in regular parking lot spaces? It seems like parking lot spaces are getting so small that even a standard sized American car is getting hard to park in some parking lots. Are Hummers difficult to parallel park without them sticking way out into the street? How are they in heavy traffic or twisty mountain roads? I’m just curious since they are so wide! Thanks! Regards, Jerry — NOTE: To reply, remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address. Jerry Bransford PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY The Zen hotdog… make me one with everything!

Response:

So I finally learned that the very wide 4×4 I’ve been seeing on TV occasionally (and occupied my dreams ever since) is called Hummer. Who’s the manufacturer? Is it an American product? Is it legal to drive a Hummer on streets (since it looks so wide)? Any dealers that I can call to get more info? (I live in Berkeley, CA, area code 510). Most important of all, what’s the price range of a Hummer? 30K? 50K? 100K? Thanks for any info. — Allen Yuen —

Response:

Yuen) writes: So I finally learned that the very wide 4×4 I’ve been seeing on TV occasionally (and occupied my dreams ever since) is called Hummer. Who’s the manufacturer? Is it an American product?

AM General manufactures it in the USA. They us a lot of GM parts in it (including the engines and trans.). I know there is a dealership about an hour north/west of Los Angeles. There are also about 50 (?) other dealerships in the USA. Is it legal to drive a Hummer on streets (since it looks so wide)?

The Hummer IS wide, but it is totally legal to drive on streets. Most important of all, what’s the price range of a Hummer? 30K? 50K? 100K?

They range from $50,000-$70,000. If you can afford one, I highly recommend it for off-roading mostly. If you are looking for a big, bad 4X4 to drive on the streets, then I recommend a Chevy Suburban like I have. Get the 454 c.i. V-8, 4X4, and front pushbars on the Suburban if you get one. — Edward Carter | The Red Hot Chili Peppers Rock!!!| Vector Avtech WX-3 Newport Beach, CA, USA | IndyCar Racing Rules!!! | ‘95 Corvette ZR-1 White Male | Al Unser Jr. Kicks Butt | ‘95 Suburban 454 4X4

Response:

Edward: recommend it for off-roading mostly. If you are looking for a big, bad 4X4 to drive on the streets, then I recommend a Chevy Suburban like I have. Get the 454 c.i. V-8, 4X4, and front pushbars on the Suburban if you get one.

We have a Suburban with the 454 but I want to know what "front pushbars" are. Also if you have any information regarding shops which deal in Suburban accesories, I would appreciate a pointer. Thank you, take care, -Robbie — School of Electrical Engineering | (404)-894-2977 ext 4 Georgia Institute of Technology | Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 | Van Leer C452

Response:

ive seen adds in 4wheel and offraod magazine for a company offering a kit car of a hummer body for a long wheel based chevy fullsize or suburban , price about 6k.

Response:

I saw the same type of ads for two different companies. One of them is at: http://www.jurassictruck.com Anyone have any experiences with these that they would like to offer? Jeff Houston, Texas

Response:

Got this off one of my 4×4 news groups. Check it out. SUPER V has been classified as Hummer on steroids. Take a stock Hummer and put in a 502 ci V8 (and other powertrain improvements)and add some comforts like top grain leather, GPS system, Kenwood or Alpine stereo and other interior comforts and you have a SUPER V. All this for the same price as a stock Hummer. Come check out our site at http://www.freeyellow.com/members/hooyahummer

Response:

I have a 95 Hummer and have had alot of problems. I’m having problems with my dealer getting them fixed. It was 30 days old when my engine thru a piston. Where it was only 30 days old I thought they should have replaced the engine. At least. I’m interested in hearling from anyone who has had similiar problems.

Response:

I’m interested in hearling from anyone who has had similiar problems.

Check at http://www.humvee.com that is the home of the Hummer Mailing List. Many of us that own Hummers can be contacted there. Eddie http://www.installer.com/hummer.html

Response:

Does anyone have any experience with purchasing Hummer’s in Canada?

colucci.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

And for a similar kit hummer-clone company in Edmonton: http://www.catvee.com/ — Darryl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone have any experience with purchasing Hummer’s in Canada? There are some Canadian Hummer owners on the HML (Hummer Mailing List): http://www.humvee.net …Bob

Response:

Does anyone have any experience with purchasing Hummer’s in Canada?

There are some Canadian Hummer owners on the HML (Hummer Mailing List): http://www.humvee.net …Bob

Response:

Posted in Camping Tents | No Comments » |

Bear Canisters/Rip Off?

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I was just wondering if any one else out there thought that the price of bear canisters is like WAY TOO MUCH!! I will be traveling to the Eastern Sierra in late July. I know that in Yosemite bear canisters are the only legal way to carry your food (lest you be fined by the ranger). HOWEVER, spending 80 dollars on a small barrel of plastic is just crazy! There has got to be a better way. Sure, I could rent one, but that involves precious vacation time that I could be using hiking, climbing, or camping. Now…don’t get me wrong. I think bear canisters are a much better idea than hanging your food (sorry). BUT, some company (that starts with a "G") is making a fortune. The materials in the"G" brand must cost about 10 bucks!! Can’t I make one out of PVC pipe? Or something? A two gallon thermos by Coleman or something might work, and even be lighter. Please boycott and protest the "g" brand. Geez, we are paying so much already to enjoy the wilderness. If anyone has any ideas, I would like to hear them. Thanks signed, Upset in Minnesota

http://12.16.220.8/ursack/ursackweb/home.html — Peter http://members.xoom.com/pecado/peter/pzhome.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Consider what you want to do in relation to what you are capable of doing. Mountaineering is above all a matter of integrity". Gaston Rebuffat

Response:

I was just wondering if any one else out there thought that the price of bear canisters is like WAY TOO MUCH!!

http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html is an alternative. Prices are a bit less. There is a place that will beat the Portal’s price of $50. If you email me I’ll look up that URL. You think that is bad. Try looking at prices at wild_ideas.com $225 for 2 lbs 2 oz. Holds quite a lot however… You can make them out of PVC. They weigh more. Make sure that you round off the edges so that Yogi, doesn’t get a good tooth hold. A screw on top would work just fine, if you leave a deep enuf slot to put a good chunk of metal into to undo it. They get pretty tough to open after somebody/thing has played with it. The question is whether the NFS Rangers will look with as much loving appreciation on your creation as you will however. Good luck!

Response:

Myths about bear canisters: M: They don’t weigh a lot. F: I don’t care how you slice it, 3 lbs. is 3 lbs. is 3 lbs. M: They can hold six man days of food. F: If the man eats dehydrated food only and is only doing moderate exertion. Add anything of substance and that curve dries up or if you are needing 4,000 to 6,000 calories due to extreme effort. M: Bear bags and hanging is just as effective. F: In some parts of the world where bears are very habituated to human food hanging from a tree is not a 100% guarantee of success. M: The bear canister covers all of your needs. F: If you are camping in an area with extreme bear activity or where the risk of a brown bear encounter is very real, a bear canister will not store your cookware, your dishes or the clothes you cooked in as recommended in these regions. If you follow bear protocol to the LAW you will just end up hanging 3/4 of your stuff anyway. I forked over the $78 at REI for mine as they are all but required at Olympic National Park if you plan to camp at Ozette. Not because of bears – because of raccoons who are so darn smart and habituated they are now prying the lids off of 5 gallon containers which if lug one of them down three miles they now strongly recommend to duct tape shut. Clever little critters – can’t blame them – chocolate brownie Clif bars taste much better than beetle grubs. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I was just wondering if any one else out there thought that the price of bear canisters is like WAY TOO MUCH!! I will be traveling to the Eastern Sierra in late July. I know that in Yosemite bear canisters are the only legal way to carry your food (lest you be fined by the ranger). HOWEVER, spending 80 dollars on a small barrel of plastic is just crazy! There has got to be a better way. Sure, I could rent one, but that involves precious vacation time that I could be using hiking, climbing, or camping. Now…don’t get me wrong. I think bear canisters are a much better idea than hanging your food (sorry). BUT, some company (that starts with a "G") is making a fortune. The materials in the"G" brand must cost about 10 bucks!! Can’t I make one out of PVC pipe? Or something? A two gallon thermos by Coleman or something might work, and even be lighter. Please boycott and protest the "g" brand. Geez, we are paying so much already to enjoy the wilderness. If anyone has any ideas, I would like to hear them. Thanks signed, Upset in Minnesota

Response:

<good stuff snipped Clever little critters – can’t blame them – chocolate brownie Clif bars taste much better than beetle grubs.

The jury is still out on that one. -MWP

Response:

: Above 9600 feet, there are few trees with good : branches, so the bear bag method is not approved there. That : almost forces you to the bear cannister, but that is only above : 9600 feet. When I was there I scrambled up a big boulder and hang my food on the overhand part of the rock. Expensive, let’s see. You come to California from Minnesota spending $600 in airfare and another $1,000 in food lodging and a car.

where do you come up those numbers? $600 airfair? is that flying from London? $1,000 in food lodging and a car ? I spent way less than that when I traveled for 2 weeks in a rental car. The lodging in the backcountry sure is expensive. The californians must be rich. gotta move west. -mh

Response:

Hi, I was just wondering if any one else out there thought that the price of bear canisters is like WAY TOO MUCH!! I will be traveling to the Eastern Sierra in late July. I know that in Yosemite bear canisters are the only legal way to carry your food (lest you be fined by the ranger). HOWEVER, spending 80 dollars on a small barrel of plastic is just crazy! There has got to be a better way. Sure, I could rent one, but that involves precious vacation time that I could be using hiking, climbing, or camping. Now…don’t get me wrong. I think bear canisters are a much better idea than hanging your food (sorry). BUT, some company (that starts with a "G") is making a fortune. The materials in the"G" brand must cost about 10 bucks!! Can’t I make one out of PVC pipe? Or something? A two gallon thermos by Coleman or something might work, and even be lighter. Please boycott and protest the "g" brand. Geez, we are paying so much already to enjoy the wilderness. If anyone has any ideas, I would like to hear them. Thanks signed, Upset in Minnesota

Response:

I know that in Yosemite bear canisters are the only legal way to carry your food (lest you be fined by the ranger).

This is not exactly true. The rules require that all backcountry travelers store their food so that the bears can’t get it. That means using a bear locker (in the few places where those exist), or it means using a bear bag in the tree, or it might mean some other obscure technique. However, the rangers have just added a new phrase. Above 9600 feet, there are few trees with good branches, so the bear bag method is not approved there. That almost forces you to the bear cannister, but that is only above 9600 feet. I’ve already discussed this with the head bear ranger of Yosemite, but I did not make any headway. —Bob Gross—

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I was just wondering if any one else out there thought that the price of bear canisters is like WAY TOO MUCH!! I will be traveling to the Eastern Sierra in late July. I know that in Yosemite bear canisters are the only legal way to carry your food (lest you be fined by the ranger). HOWEVER, spending 80 dollars on a small barrel of plastic is just crazy! There has got to be a better way. Sure, I could rent one, but that involves precious vacation time that I could be using hiking, climbing, or camping. Now…don’t get me wrong. I think bear canisters are a much better idea than hanging your food (sorry). BUT, some company (that starts with a "G") is making a fortune. The materials in the"G" brand must cost about 10 bucks!! Can’t I make one out of PVC pipe? Or something? A two gallon thermos by Coleman or something might work, and even be lighter. Please boycott and protest the "g" brand. Geez, we are paying so much already to enjoy the wilderness. If anyone has any ideas, I would like to hear them. Thanks signed, Upset in Minnesota

Hmmmm….they rent the cannisters at the ranger stations and you have to go there to pick up your permit. So much for the precious time argument. Expensive, let’s see. You come to California from Minnesota spending $600 in airfare and another $1,000 in food lodging and a car. Now two days into the eastern Sierra backcountry a week long trip a bear takes your food which has been nicely counter balanced in a tree. Now, is that Garcia Bear Resistant Cannister you can rent for a couple of bucks a day so expensive? They are a pain in the ass and heavy but effective. Bill

Response:

Posted in Camping Park | No Comments » |

Trangia Mini stove

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel. Agreed, it takes a fairly long trip to make the 1 pound cannister break even, although Snowpeak sells 100 gram and 200 gram cannisters too (with less metal-container overhead, and therefore a shorter-trip break-even point). Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, … Yes, that’s cool, I won’t deny it. I think I’m emotionally scarred by years of trying to use a stupid white-gas stove, and the first time I used a GAZ, I fell in love (like many people). I can’t imagine anything else could be as easy and trouble-free, but maybe I should give alcohol a chance. I definitely like the minimalism of it !

What happens with the compressed gas stoves at high altitudes? I have always worked with white gas stoves and, of course, the alcohol burner of late. I have to assume that compressed gas stoves (GAZ or propane) lose quite a bit of punch at higher altitudes since you are working with a set pressure from within the storage can. Liquid fuel stoves have a limitation in colder weather because one needs to preheat the generator. The alcohol stove work great under both these conditions. I guess every stove will have it’s benefits and drawbacks… one has to weigh all of them and adjust to your particular circumstances. There’s nothing pretty about the pepsi can stove. It’s just not as glamorous as Peak 1 Apex II multi-fuel stove. But it is a fun and easy project for those who want to try a different road. — Bryan Casper

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient … My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption … Kudos on actually doing the experiment (with your gas stove) ! I was just quoting from hearsay and specifications. Specifically, my GAZ stove instructions say it burns 200 grams of fuel per hour. In experiments, I find it takes about 5 minutes to boil a liter of water at sea level. That works out to about 0.6oz of fuel per liter boiled. I wish somebody with a scale that can measure asomething as heavy as a propane/butane fuel bottle to 0.1oz precision would see if this number holds up. If it does, it is clearly much more efficient than alcohol and maybe a little better than white-gas. (I haven’t experimented with my Snowpeak yet, but imagine it would be very similar). The ease of use and relative quietness of the compressed-gas over white-gas is worth a few ounces to me. I haven’t ever used an alcohol stove. Somebody want to comment on its ease of use compared to compressed-gas ? I gather it’s definitely WAY quiter. Most manufacturers tests of boiling time are done with water starting at 70 degrees and at sea level. Most of the commercial stoves tested bring a liter of water to a boil in from 4 to 7 minutes under these conditions. The pepsi can alcohol stove tests that I did were done with water directly from the tap… probably more like 45 degrees. My testing location was at around 1000 feet above sea level. Not too many mountain streams out there giving you 70 degree water and your certainly not at sea level.

May a Coke can be used? I detest Pepsi. Better, can a Keystone light can be used? Chuck — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth

Response:

Ah, guys, you are missing some points with stoves! Butane stoves tend to work well at warm temperatures and tend to work poorly at cold temperatures. However, as you go to high elevations, the atmospheric air pressure outside the can is reduced, so that lets the butane "leak out" easier than it would at low elevation. So, low elevation and low temps are bad for butane. High elevation and any temps are OK for butane. White gas stoves are regulated by the amount of pumping pressure that you put on the fuel reservoir, so atmospheric air pressure is not so much an issue. However, with reduced pressure, you have to make sure that the white gas stove is fully vented. Otherwise, you will asphixiate yourself on fumes. I’ve used a properly vented white gas stove up to 19,500′, and it was fine. —Bob Gross—

Response:

May a Coke can be used? I detest Pepsi. Better, can a Keystone light can be used? Chuck

The instructions try to say that only pepsi cans work because of their unique bottom design. However, I have used other soda cans and even beer cans without any perceivable difference. — Bryan Casper

Response:

What happens with the compressed gas stoves at high altitudes? I have always worked with white gas stoves and, of course, the alcohol burner of late. I have to assume that compressed gas stoves (GAZ or propane) lose quite a bit of punch at higher altitudes since you are working with a set pressure from within the storage can. ….

I haven’t used the canister stoves above 14.265′, but up to that point, they work perfectly. In fact, the lower outside pressure gives them somewhat of an advantage at alititude … theoretically. — Jim Fuller

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel. Agreed, it takes a fairly long trip to make the 1 pound cannister break even, although Snowpeak sells 100 gram and 200 gram cannisters too (with less metal-container overhead, and therefore a shorter-trip break-even point). Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, … Yes, that’s cool, I won’t deny it. I think I’m emotionally scarred by years of trying to use a stupid white-gas stove, and the first time I used a GAZ, I fell in love (like many people). I can’t imagine anything else could be as easy and trouble-free, but maybe I should give alcohol a chance. I definitely like the minimalism of it ! What happens with the compressed gas stoves at high altitudes? I have always worked with white gas stoves and, of course, the alcohol burner of late. I have to assume that compressed gas stoves (GAZ or propane) lose quite a bit of punch at higher altitudes since you are working with a set pressure from within the storage can. Liquid fuel stoves have a limitation in colder weather because one needs to preheat the generator. The alcohol stove work great under both these conditions. I guess every stove will have it’s benefits and drawbacks… one has to weigh all of them and adjust to your particular circumstances. There’s nothing pretty about the pepsi can stove. It’s just not as glamorous as Peak 1 Apex II multi-fuel stove. But it is a fun and easy project for those who want to try a different road. — Bryan Casper

The only problem with high altitude is lack of oxygen. Naturally, I have trouble with that, my car has trouble with that and my stove hase trouble. In general, any of the stoves will work at pretty high altitude. If you can breath, the stove will work but it may not work well. Temperature, at altitudes in the US, tends to be more at issue. White gas and kerosene are fine. Butane won’t even get down to freezing. Propane/butane mix is supposed to be good to pretty low temperatures but I just now put a cannister in the freezer to test this. BTW, the propane/butane mix is known to be good in fairly cold weather but because the partial pressures differ, I have wondered if a propane/butane mix in cold might end up exhausting the propane leaving useless butane behind. Perhaps someone with a nearly empty canister can experiment. Chuck — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient … My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption … Kudos on actually doing the experiment (with your gas stove) ! I was just quoting from hearsay and specifications. Specifically, my GAZ stove instructions say it burns 200 grams of fuel per hour. In experiments, I find it takes about 5 minutes to boil a liter of water at sea level. That works out to about 0.6oz of fuel per liter boiled. I wish somebody with a scale that can measure asomething as heavy as a propane/butane fuel bottle to 0.1oz precision would see if this number holds up. If it does, it is clearly much more efficient than alcohol and maybe a little better than white-gas. (I haven’t experimented with my Snowpeak yet, but imagine it would be very similar). The ease of use and relative quietness of the compressed-gas over white-gas is worth a few ounces to me. I haven’t ever used an alcohol stove. Somebody want to comment on its ease of use compared to compressed-gas ? I gather it’s definitely WAY quiter.

Most manufacturers tests of boiling time are done with water starting at 70 degrees and at sea level. Most of the commercial stoves tested bring a liter of water to a boil in from 4 to 7 minutes under these conditions. The pepsi can alcohol stove tests that I did were done with water directly from the tap… probably more like 45 degrees. My testing location was at around 1000 feet above sea level. Not too many mountain streams out there giving you 70 degree water and your certainly not at sea level. The alcohol stove (which can be built literally for free) is not meant to be in direct competition with stoves costing $50 to $150. Although it holds up pretty well in a fair comparison test. Size of a pepsi can that stands 1 inch tall. This stove’s pack ability is far superior to any other stove out there. Weighs less than an empty soda can. The closest competitor, another alcohol stove, is ten times heavier. No moving parts to fowl. No sharp pieces to damage packs or other gear. Never needs to be cleaned. In fact, after many, many uses, the stove still looks like it has never been fired. Excellent in all forms of weather and at any altitude. Fuel is readily available across the US and in most foreign counties. In fact, this stove drastically outperforms every stove on the market in every category except for boil time and fuel economy. Both of these items are of little consequence unless you are taking trips which require cooking for a larger number of people in one pot or are gone for over 2 weeks at a time. It’s definitely not as fancy as the commercial backpacking stoves, but it’s an interesting conversation piece at any campsite. It’s a fun project for backpackers who enjoy a little more self efficiency other than just going out and buying every product they need. I enjoy experimenting with things like this. I have also used Tyvec ground clothes for many years and would never consider going back to a commercial tarp. Tomorrow we will be sewing up a parasail for both rain and sun protection using Tyvec. — Bryan Casper

Response:

It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel.

Agreed, it takes a fairly long trip to make the 1 pound cannister break even, although Snowpeak sells 100 gram and 200 gram cannisters too (with less metal-container overhead, and therefore a shorter-trip break-even point). Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, …

Yes, that’s cool, I won’t deny it. I think I’m emotionally scarred by years of trying to use a stupid white-gas stove, and the first time I used a GAZ, I fell in love (like many people). I can’t imagine anything else could be as easy and trouble-free, but maybe I should give alcohol a chance. I definitely like the minimalism of it !

Response:

the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient … My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption …

Kudos on actually doing the experiment (with your gas stove) ! I was just quoting from hearsay and specifications. Specifically, my GAZ stove instructions say it burns 200 grams of fuel per hour. In experiments, I find it takes about 5 minutes to boil a liter of water at sea level. That works out to about 0.6oz of fuel per liter boiled. I wish somebody with a scale that can measure asomething as heavy as a propane/butane fuel bottle to 0.1oz precision would see if this number holds up. If it does, it is clearly much more efficient than alcohol and maybe a little better than white-gas. (I haven’t experimented with my Snowpeak yet, but imagine it would be very similar). The ease of use and relative quietness of the compressed-gas over white-gas is worth a few ounces to me. I haven’t ever used an alcohol stove. Somebody want to comment on its ease of use compared to compressed-gas ? I gather it’s definitely WAY quiter.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – %< = Any theories about why adding water to the alcohol improves how = it burns? (At least here’s some water that you wouldn’t = have to purify!) Actually adding water to the alcohol doesn’t improve the burn, but it does reduce the soot on the pots. Which is why Trangia have recommended the 90% alcohol 10% water mix for decades. %<

Depends on how you qualify "improve the burn". If it burns for 9 1/2 minutes with 100% alcohol and also burns 9 1/2 minutes with 90% alcohol, there is something gained. I have made minor adjustments here and there which seem to decrease boil time thus increasing efficiency. I guess it would be hard to argue that there’s any more potential energy in the 90% mixture than there is in the 100% mixture, but perhaps the slightly slower burn of the alcohol allows more heat to be absorbed by the pot and thus the water in the pot. I also use a Mirror pot which is teflon coated on both the inside and the outside. Because this pot is black on the outside, it seems to get the water boiling faster than an equivalent pot that is silver on the outside. Using a cover on the pot is, of course, just common sense. As far as sort is concerned, either mixture burns clean. However, rubbing alcohol (70% mixture) burns a bit dirtier. — Bryan Casper

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …. I used less than 1/2 ounce of fuel to boil one liter of water. My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption in the test. I didn’t try it because I don’t have a way to weigh the cannister. The Post Office lobbies around here have digital postal scales that seem to be accurate (they are repeatable, anyway) to 0.1 oz. up to 3 lbs., 0.5 oz. from 3 to 70 lbs. In general, I have found that my Primus canister stove uses about 0.6 oz. for a meal, which involves boiling a little less than a quart of water, and maybe reheating it or boiling a bit more. That’s in average use in the field. I habitually figure 2 oz. or so fuel per day (breakfast and dinner) for either canister fuels or white gas, and I always bring fuel back with me.

Your considerable experience and my experiment pretty much nail it. White gas and liquified petroleum gas fuels are pretty even and hard to tell apart. That little Trangia burner is just so cute and quiet….

The penalty is probably only 1 ounce of fuel per day to use it. Considering I can hardly get your pack off of the ground, that should be a small matter. Even at my heaviest when I had two coats and two sweaters along (not light stuff), you were still heavier. It makes me sick. I’ll never get in shape at this rate. You should have seen me a few weeks ago hoping a helicopter would fly over and drop oxygen. It didn’t. I had to walk to get down to where there is something like air. Chuck P. S. That last was for Len McVaulty, outdoorsman extraordinare who "does not do mountains." Where I live, mountains are hard to avoid the way they keep jumping out in front of you. — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth

Response:

…. I used less than 1/2 ounce of fuel to boil one liter of water. My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption in the test. I didn’t try it because I don’t have a way to weigh the cannister.

The Post Office lobbies around here have digital postal scales that seem to be accurate (they are repeatable, anyway) to 0.1 oz. up to 3 lbs., 0.5 oz. from 3 to 70 lbs. In general, I have found that my Primus canister stove uses about 0.6 oz. for a meal, which involves boiling a little less than a quart of water, and maybe reheating it or boiling a bit more. That’s in average use in the field. I habitually figure 2 oz. or so fuel per day (breakfast and dinner) for either canister fuels or white gas, and I always bring fuel back with me. My point here is the liquified gas fuels and white gas are so close together that it should be hard to tell them apart from fuel consumption. Alcohol, however, is poor enough that it will be behind. It may be preferred in some cases because of availability of fuel and the fact that the alcohol itself is less irritating than many hydrocarbons.

That little Trangia burner is just so cute and quiet…. — Jim Fuller

Response:

If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove. At 3 ounces, the Snowpeak stove comes close. Although there is a significant weight overhead for the pressurized fuel can (about 6oz for the one that holds 1 pound of fuel), the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient, in other words, it takes well under an ounce of fuel to boil a liter of water, whereas people are quoting close to an ounce of alcohol or white-gas to boil a liter. So on a pretty long trip, it would amortize out.

It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel. Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, generator, jets etc. In fact, it does have a generator, the double walls of the stove work as a generator to cause the alcohol to evaporate and rush out of the burner holes. The stove is just a fun thing to do for ultra lightweight backpackers. The knowledge of how to build one may serve a purpose some time in the future (your on the A.T. and your "super scorcher deluxe" stove takes a dive. You buy a few cans of pepsi and some alcohol and your back on the trail. In a pinch, this stove could be made with nothing more than a knife and some duct tape. — Bryan Casper

Response:

If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove. At 3 ounces, the Snowpeak stove comes close. Although there is a significant weight overhead for the pressurized fuel can (about 6oz for the one that holds 1 pound of fuel), the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient, in other words, it takes well under an ounce of fuel to boil a liter of water, whereas people are quoting close to an ounce of alcohol or white-gas to boil a liter. So on a pretty long trip, it would amortize out.

I could not let this go by without an experiment. First why. It happens that heavier hydrocarbons such as white gas have very slightly greater heat output per pound of fuel than butane or propane. The difference is slight, however. Alcohol is very bad at less than 2/3’s the heat output. I grabbed my MSR bottle and my trusty Whisperlite 600. I poured the fuel from the bottle into a measuring cup. There were about 8.5 ounces – very close. I poured the fuel back into the MSR bottle and proceeded to pump. I then connected the bottle to the stove and moved on to the priming ritual which is simple and takes little time. I then cranked the valve up to satisfactory Boeing 747 takeoff sound effects and placed my normal backpack pot on the stove containing 0.5 liters of what passes for cold tap water here. I prepared another half liter to follow. When the pot reached a good rolling boil, I dumped it, refilled it and put it back on the stove. When it reached a good rolling boil I turned off the stove and waited for the fuel line to clear. I removed the pump and poured the fuel into the same measuring cup sitting on the same surface as before. There was very slightly more than 8 ounces left. Thus, with priming and the whole nine yards, I used less than 1/2 ounce of fuel to boil one liter of water. My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption in the test. I didn’t try it because I don’t have a way to weigh the cannister. My point here is the liquified gas fuels and white gas are so close together that it should be hard to tell them apart from fuel consumption. Alcohol, however, is poor enough that it will be behind. It may be preferred in some cases because of availability of fuel and the fact that the alcohol itself is less irritating than many hydrocarbons. BTW, see the MSR Whisperlite 600 debate in another thread. Chuck — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth

Response:

Could you describe what a "scratch-all" is?

It’s nothing more than sharp pointed tool with a wood handle. Carpenters use them to scratch marks into wood. Leather workers use them as a small hole punch. Any sharp tool will work for the purpose of getting the initial holes into the can. Mix 10% water into your denatured alcohol (improves to burn). Any theories about why adding water to the alcohol improves how it burns? (At least here’s some water that you wouldn’t have to purify!)

No idea… just picked that tip up off the net from some other backpacker who is into alcohol stoves. I tried it and it does seem to improve the burn, plus it reduces fuel consumption by 10% (because you seem to get the same burn time on 100% or 90% alcohol mixture). Some stove burn rubbing alcohol, which is a 70% alcohol and 30% water mixture. But I’ve found rubbing alcohol to burn a bit cooler than my 90% mixture of denatured alcohol. Buy one of those small cans of dog food (the size of a tuna can) with the plastic reusable top [...] Ooh, now you’ve just tripled the weight of the stove, right?

Yes, probably so… you’ve got me there. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So, Troubadour has plans on his site for both the pepsi can stove and the cat food can stove. They look like they do a pretty similar job for how long or how much fuel it takes to boil water. Has anyone built one of each to compare them side by side to see what other factors might make one better than the other? (I would guess that they’re of similarly negligible weight, especially compared with the weight of the fuel.) Here’s the relevant "results" parts of the two descriptions, side by side (go to Troubadour’s nice web site for the full directions about how to build the stoves): Pepsi can stove: Stove weight is 10 g (0.35 oz). Pot stand and windscreeen weight are extra. A volume of 30 ml (1 fl oz or 2 Tb) of denatured alcohol will bring 2 cups of water to a rolling boil in about 5 1/2 min and will burn for about 9 min. Cat food can stove: At ADZPCTKOP2 (i.e., the Second Annual Day Zero Pacific Crest Trail Kick Off Party) [...] it wasn’t the prettiest or the lightest stove there but it did boil one cup of water the fastest in 2 minutes, 24 seconds. [...] It will bring two cups of water to a boil in about 5 minutes, has no moving parts, and will fit inside your cook pot. [...It ] weighs just 1.6 ounces including the stand and windscreen. SPECULATION (I haven’t made one of either of these): One factor that could make a difference is that it looks to me like the cat food can stove would be easier to make. And it might also be a little sturdier if you happen to step on it?

The pepsi can stove is actually quite easy to build. Once you place the bottom and top pieces together, it is also quite sturdy. Remember, once it’s built it has three times the thickness of a soda can on it’s side walls and it only stands 1 inch tall. —

– Bryan Casper

Response:

If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove.

At 3 ounces, the Snowpeak stove comes close. Although there is a significant weight overhead for the pressurized fuel can (about 6oz for the one that holds 1 pound of fuel), the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient, in other words, it takes well under an ounce of fuel to boil a liter of water, whereas people are quoting close to an ounce of alcohol or white-gas to boil a liter. So on a pretty long trip, it would amortize out.

Response:

If you have any other questions, ask away… I’ll answer as best I can. [...] Go to http://www.pcthiker.com/pages/gearset.html for step by step instructions. The only improvements I’ve found to make to the stove are as follows. The 32 holes in the can should be punched with a small scratch-all and then opened to the size of a 3 penny finish nail.

Could you describe what a "scratch-all" is? Mix 10% water into your denatured alcohol (improves to burn).

Any theories about why adding water to the alcohol improves how it burns? (At least here’s some water that you wouldn’t have to purify!) Buy one of those small cans of dog food (the size of a tuna can) with the plastic reusable top [...]

Ooh, now you’ve just tripled the weight of the stove, right? So, Troubadour has plans on his site for both the pepsi can stove and the cat food can stove. They look like they do a pretty similar job for how long or how much fuel it takes to boil water. Has anyone built one of each to compare them side by side to see what other factors might make one better than the other? (I would guess that they’re of similarly negligible weight, especially compared with the weight of the fuel.) Here’s the relevant "results" parts of the two descriptions, side by side (go to Troubadour’s nice web site for the full directions about how to build the stoves): Pepsi can stove: Stove weight is 10 g (0.35 oz). Pot stand and windscreeen weight are extra. A volume of 30 ml (1 fl oz or 2 Tb) of denatured alcohol will bring 2 cups of water to a rolling boil in about 5 1/2 min and will burn for about 9 min. Cat food can stove: At ADZPCTKOP2 (i.e., the Second Annual Day Zero Pacific Crest Trail Kick Off Party) [...] it wasn’t the prettiest or the lightest stove there but it did boil one cup of water the fastest in 2 minutes, 24 seconds. [...] It will bring two cups of water to a boil in about 5 minutes, has no moving parts, and will fit inside your cook pot. [...It ] weighs just 1.6 ounces including the stand and windscreen.

SPECULATION (I haven’t made one of either of these): One factor that could make a difference is that it looks to me like the cat food can stove would be easier to make. And it might also be a little sturdier if you happen to step on it? —

Response:

I’m trying to keep a light load when I do the JMT in a year or so (I like to plan early <grin); would it be worth it to make one of those alcohol burning stoves, or should I buy a light weight stove- how long would on of the pepsi can stoves last? Thanks!

Response:

I’m trying to keep a light load when I do the JMT in a year or so (I like to plan early <grin); would it be worth it to make one of those alcohol burning stoves, or should I buy a light weight stove- how long would on of the pepsi can stoves last? Thanks!

If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove. In fact, the stove, the sterno windscreen (available anywhere that sterno is sold) and a 22 ounce fuel canister full of fuel, is still lighter weight than a Coleman Duel Fuel 533 stove with it’s fuel compartment empty. It takes about 30 minutes to build one after you have done it once. The stove burns completely clean… in fact a stove that has burned many times still looks like it has never been fired. I have fired mine up many, many times without any visible signs of wear and tear. Since they cost nothing to build and weight nothing, you can carry a spare, just in case. Go to http://www.pcthiker.com/pages/gearset.html for step by step instructions. The only improvements I’ve found to make to the stove are as follows. The 32 holes in the can should be punched with a small scratch-all and then opened to the size of a 3 penny finish nail. Cut the center of the can out by simply scratching around the edge with a razor blade knife until you cut through the can (no need to do all that drilling and cutting). Place some loosely fitting household fiberglass insulation between to 2 walls of the stove for better fuel absorption. Mix 10% water into your denatured alcohol (improves to burn). Buy one of those small cans of dog food (the size of a tuna can) with the plastic reusable top (this works well to store the stove and to prop it up to the right height when it is in the sterno wind screen). Advantages Denatured alcohol is still available at most hardware stores. Zero cost to build. 1 Ounce of fuel gets a quart of water boiling. Instant lighting under any conditions or altitude. No moving parts, pump or generator to foul on the trail. Burns very hot. Disadvantages It’s like a booster rocket. You put the fuel in it, light it, and it burns for about 9 1/2 minutes at full power and then goes out. No simmer setting. No real way to save the remaining fuel if your water is already boiling. Remember, 2 cups of water comes to a full rolling boil in 5 1/2 minutes. Some Remedies I have not tried snuffing the fire out and placing the stove into the dog food can to try and reserve unspent fuel, but it probably would work. I carry a can of sterno for simmering. Without any attempts at fuel preservation, the stove gives you 209 minutes of burn time on a 22 ounce fuel supply. It will heat either 2 cups or one quart of water to a boil 22 times on this amount of fuel. If you have any other questions, ask away… I’ll answer as best I can. — Bryan Casper

Response:

Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind) thanks John Misrahi Montreal, Canada

You can actually build one of these alcohol burning stoves out of 2 pepsi cans. Plan are available on the net. I use this type of stove regularly and it works quite well. The stove weighs less than an empty soda can. An aluminum "cross" can be fashioned to hold a pot over the stove. Other have simply used three titanium tent stakes. I use a wind screen from the Sterno company. I get about a nine and half minute burn from one ounce of fuel. The fuel is 90% denatured alcohol and 10% water. Fuel cost is about $3.50 per quart, but I’ve seen gallon cans at Home Depot for around $7.00. The fuel comes at 100% strength. You must add the 10% water when you fill your fuel canister. Five and a half minutes gets 2 cups of water to full rolling boil. Eight and a half minutes get a quart to just start boiling. Sterno can be used to maintain a boil after the alcohol stove does its work of getting the boil going. The home built stove and the trangia stove are ideal lightweight backpackers options. — Bryan Casper

Response:

So if I was to make/buy a windscreen, possibly out of some heavy duty foil or something, could it make the difference with the mini Trangia? The burners are the same on all the Trangia stoves; the difference is in the pot stand and windscreen. With the larger sets the stand is an effective windscreen. With the mini, the stand (with burner inside) fits inside a 1 qt pan. At that size it is more stand than windscreen

So only available for the full sized model? Btw, can anyone tell me roughly how much these stoves retail for in Canada? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -For winter use with their larger sets, Trangia sells a winter adapter. This apparently consists of an aluminum plate to keep the burner from sinking into the snow and a ‘warmer cup’ that allows you to preheat the fuel. These burners give the strongest flame when all the fuel in the cup is hot, which normally requires several minutes of burning. Paul

Response:

Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind)

The burners are the same on all the Trangia stoves; the difference is in the pot stand and windscreen. With the larger sets the stand is an effective windscreen. With the mini, the stand (with burner inside) fits inside a 1 qt pan. At that size it is more stand than windscreen. But a folded (or rolled) windscreen such as used on MSR stoves fits around the mini stove and pot. Some places also sell a ‘westwind’ stand (with burner) that is just stand – consisting of 2 crossed pieces of metal. For winter use with their larger sets, Trangia sells a winter adapter. This apparently consists of an aluminum plate to keep the burner from sinking into the snow and a ‘warmer cup’ that allows you to preheat the fuel. These burners give the strongest flame when all the fuel in the cup is hot, which normally requires several minutes of burning. Paul

Response:

My Mini-Trangia is my favorite stove. Don’t think I’d use it in the winter though, white gas would be better. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind) thanks John Misrahi Montreal, Canada

Response:

Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind) thanks John Misrahi Montreal, Canada

Response:

[ John Misrahi ] Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind)

Is this the one without windscreen? If so, it is unsuitable in wind, and especially in winter. If you look at the last couple(?) month’s worth of postings to this group, you’ll see some threads on this, notably with ginnregin and S W as prominent participants. Martin — Unfortunately, the computer science departments in many universities apparently believe that fluency in C++ is more important than a sound education in elementary mathematics. -Leslie Lamport, Specifying Concurrent Systems with TLA+

Response:

Posted in Campsite | No Comments » |

Another Shuttle Tale – Something About Mary (long)

Question:

Whose rbp sig file is that that reads "The best is yet to come"?

I *believe* that be Blakely LeCroix’ (RailTramp) sig that yer referring to. Keep it in mind, cause fer most of us it’s just a simple way of saying a slightly more complex "truth." — Michael Dooley Grand Canyon Rafting http://www.sonic.net/mdooley/rivrpage.html

Response:

Thanks for the great shuttle tale….I never knew about the toilet paper in a pair of socks filter trick…

Response:

a great tale, thanks. funny how the fondness of the memories is directly proportionate to the amount of discomfort felt at the time steve

Response:

Great trip story! BijiliE

Response:

And I knew, right then, at that moment in time, that it was the BEST I’d ever felt. And it still is. Excellent tale. Loved it. How do you cope with the normality after the best? I get reserved about doing some things in certain places as I think it just won’t live up to what it was before and I’ll be disappointed… but I usually go back anyway, just in case.

Well, I’ve gone back to run Boquillas since, and it was fun and all…but when I crested that little hill on the road coming up out of La Linda…well, I got a tingly rememberance what it had felt like anyway, and that was cool. Whose rbp sig file is that that reads "The best is yet to come"? I hope so too, ’cause some of the previous bests have been pretty damn fine. (Although, when I stop to consider, a lot of the previous "bests" have been closely associated with some kind of recovery after a screw-up or other carnage Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

And I knew, right then, at that moment in time, that it was the BEST I’d ever felt. And it still is.

Excellent tale. Loved it. How do you cope with the normality after the best? I get reserved about doing some things in certain places as I think it just won’t live up to what it was before and I’ll be disappointed… but I usually go back anyway, just in case. Jez "I don’t care who’s son you are, you’re not walking on my water!" Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Early on during a radical sabbatical year-on-the-road I had spent far too much time helping build my friend Lee’s cabin in the Chiricahuas and far too little time boating. Everyone in the Chiricahaus had a nickname (Mongo, Useless Bill, Boots) and, having spent a couple months working for free and doing all the damn grunt work, I had become known locally as "Manuel Labor". Seizing on a break in the wood-butchery schedule, I told Lee that I had to go paddling, and took off for Big Bend in south Texas. I’d heard that there were a couple of nice runs on the Rio Grande thereabouts and elected to do a gentle float through Boquillas canyon, stretching a twenty-some mile canyon run into a 4 day trip with lots of in-canyon camping and arroyo exploration. Drove all night from SE Arizona to Big Bend and arrived in Boquillas Village exhausted but raring to get out into the solitude of the canyon. Got to talking with a young lady wandering about the 115 degree in the shade put-in and she offered to run my shuttle for a reasonable fee. Fantastic. Serendipity. Fill a 5 gallon carboy and a few canteens with water, throw the rest of my gear in the boat and here’s the keys – pick me up in La Linda in four days. Yeah, yeah, yeah..something about a gravel bar on the right just after the last island…see ya in 4 days. Get out on the river and it’s just what the doctor ordered. When I picked up my permit the Rangers told me there was no one else ahead of me on the river and that they wouldn’t really expect to see anyone else. Hotter

Posted in Camping Gear | No Comments » |

How much water to bring for 4 day trip in Vermont?

Question:

Your people better learn to trust either filters or iodine treatment. (I count boiling drinking water as suitable only for survival situations because of the fuel consumption and time required for the water to cool.) Water weighs 8.3 lbs per gallon. Even in non-strenuous activities, it is recommended that you drink 8 glasses of water per day. That’s 3/4 gallon. For "going up and down mountains for four days" make that a full gallon (8.3 lbs.) or more .. per person .. per day, or 33.2 lbs per person for the trip — just for drinking. Add to that what you need for cooking …. I don’t know your menu, but I’d guess about 2 quarts per person per day for breakfast of instant oatmeal and coffee or cocoa and supper of a typical freeze dried or dehydrated entree. That makes another 2 gallons (16.6 lbs) per person for the trip. All that comes out to over 50 lbs of water per person for the entire 4 days. Bottom line is you simply cannot carry 4 days worth of water along with the rest of your gear. Well, maybe you ‘could" but why? A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Ed Stevens/TN

Response:

Your suggestion that water should be "packed along the wearer’s spine" is an excellent suggestion. The inconvenience of fumbling with (or worse, carrying) awkward water bottles is dissolved with a CamelBak hydration system, which is totally insulated to keep the water fresh and cool, and provides hands free drinking. A variety of styles and sizes are available ranging from 50 – 100 oz (1.2 – 3 ltrs). Styles vary, some are complete with 1520 cu. inches of cargo space, and some are simple enough to fit inside your existing backpack. The military depends on these systems for long hauls and fumble free maneuvers, and some are even moving to the CamelBak system to replace the 1 and 2 qt canteen systems currently being used. To view these products in various forms, go to www.treasuresandmore.com/camelbak.htm and take advantage to purchase at discount prices with free shipping. Thank you for the opportunity to share this wonderful product with this group. Geri Weaver – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days. Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

Response:

bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Unless you intend on carrying their water as well as your own, you can NOT carry enough water for an August trip in the mountains for 4 days, and carry food as well. The amount of water varies depending on the activity levels, and body weight. I myself drink close to a gallon a day, more in really hot weather, then add in the weight of food and equipment and you’ll see why I don’t believe you can enjoy a 4 day trip and carry the entire supply of water. My advice is to NOT take those who won’t drink either plain or filtered, or treated water as they will cause you problems. — Legal Warning: Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to me – consider this an official notice.

Response:

Since some of the group has filters, you have another option. Tell those not wanting to use a filter that they need 3.47 liters of water. When they run out, say "Opps, I was wrong." Tell them they can either go thirsty, or have some of your filtered water.

Hmmm, forcing logic on them. Cool. That idea has my vote.

Response:

… August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains

for four days. I carry two one liter bottles. Fill them both up in the morning with purified water. Drink out of one bottle when empty fill it dump in your favorite chemicals then drink out of the second bottle. By the time it is empty the re-filled one will be OK. Only in the desert would I pack more water. Any other place you can find it as you go Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Thanks for all of the replies. I’m going to show several of these posts to the members of my group so that they can understand the impracticality of carrying all of your water. I’ve got my filter, a friend of mine has his, and another person in the group is looking into getting a filter so we should be fine.

Response:

Thanks for all of the replies. I’m going to show several of these posts to the members of my group so that they can understand the impracticality of carrying all of your water. I’ve got my filter, a friend of mine has his, and another person in the group is looking into getting a filter so we should be fine.

Since some of the group has filters, you have another option. Tell those not wanting to use a filter that they need 3.47 liters of water. When they run out, say "Opps, I was wrong." Tell them they can either go thirsty, or have some of your filtered water. — Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at http://www.cauce.org/ It is there as an experiment to see if email spammers scan content — Pete Hickey | | VEIWIT University of Ottawa | | mirrors for Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| (613) 562-5800×1008 | dyslexics.

Response:

Okay, just my hiking experience but I generally get by on a lot less water. I would be hard pressed to say I know anyone who drinks the recommended 8 glasses of water per day when they are at home and water is easily available. While it is ideal to have a gallon of water per day it just isn’t practical. Most of my hiking is in the midwest where the water concerns are industrial and farming run off, so filters really don’t do much good, and carrying water is a necessity. In general a four day hike is only three 24 hour periods; you start hiking mid morning (possibly later if you have a long drive) on the first day and finish mid afternoon on the forth day. So really you only need water for three days. Also most people I know Carbo-load before a long trip, do the same thing with water. If you start perfectly hydrated or even slightly over hydrated, you can afford to let yourself dehydrate (only slighty) over a four day period. I you have a big breakfast with lots of water and juice, you can minimize your lunch requirments (and fluid requirements) for the first day. If you are in a well mapped area and are certain that you will finish on time you can just have a powerbar for your lunch on the last day and have a lot of water and food waiting in the car so that you can recover from any minor hunger and thirst. You can also reduce your bodys water requirement by being smart. Don’t drink beer or coffee on the hike since they will reduce your body ability to use the water you consume. If possible don’t walk in the sun and wear a hat to keep your body cool. The cooler you are the less you sweet and the less you sweet the less water you need. Also you can cool your body down with the questionable river you arn’t willing to drink; moisen you hat and cloths with river water if it is a really hot day or take a break and swim. Also avoid having all of you meals be rehydrated, they require extra water to cook and are often very salty, making you more thursty. Another amazingly useful invention I found was cook-in bags. Often camping food comes in cook-in bags and you can also buy cook-in bags for your own recepies. If you also eat out of the bag, the only washing you have to do is one spoon or fork per person, which reduces the need for dish water. I would like to reiderate that these are only my experiences and it is very dangerous to dehydraiting yourself. Be smart don’t starve yourself of water, just make sure you feel well hydrated and don’t feel like you need to maximize your water intake to some recommended level. Also have a back up. No mater how experienced you are, things can go wrong, water bottles can spill and be broken, injuries and detores can occure and lengthen the duration of you trip. If you are dehydrated you will function poorly. Try a few short trips and see how much water you actually drink/use per 24 hrs. Also even if you don’t trust water filters, they don’t weigh a lot, so have atleast one one the group. That way if you run out of water you can still get drinking water. I’d rather risk fitlered water than go without. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days. You can’t do this. You will need at least a gallon a day. That’s over 30 pounds of just water the first day. Add in all your other gear and food and you get a pack weight that is just impossible for most people. If people won’t use the filters or pills, leave them at home. Before you go out for several days, you should try out all your gear for an over nighter. So, let these water carriers try the four day load for just one day and see how they do. Maybe that is the only way you can show them this is not a good idea. I would not start out with people carrying this kind of load because they are just going to screw up your trip. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Visit http://members.aol.com/MarvWelte/index.html for backpacking info.

WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5538

Response:

John, it looks like you didn’t read the question, which said quite clearly that filters are not an option. I, personally, would use a filter, do use a filter, and somewhat sarcastically suggested that they use a filter. But, if filters are not an option, so be it. The guy asked his question (How much water?) and I answered (18 liters, 36 pounds, 1,400 cubic inches, $86 worth of bottles). I have carried more than that in the desert, and know it can be done. That is not "absurd." What is absurd is ridiculing the guy because some of his hiking partners have some kind of phobia about having their precious bodily fluids sullied by filtered water. I’d let them enjoy the backcountry any way they can. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is absurd to suggest to carry all that water! It’s not like this guy is going on some desert trek in the Sahara. I say to look on your map if there are any springs by the trails, and use a water filter like everybody else or even more safe just boil your water. I have been using a water purifier/filter for many years ,I’m still alive and I still have all my hair on my head….. Cheers! … August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days. Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html Your suggestion that water should be "packed along the wearer’s spine" is an excellent suggestion. … The idea of packing dense stuff along the spine is to minimize the polar moment of inertia of the pack plus upper-body. It make the person more agile all day and less tired in the evening. For weekend warriors, it reduces the possibility of a back sprain and those Monday morning aches and pains. The only exception is liquid fueled stoves and liquid fuel bottles, which are dense but could leak into the pack. Best to put them in an outer pocket. Lots of packs have exterior water bottle pockets low on the side, so you can reach them without taking off the pack. A bum idea, because of the polar moment of inertia issue. I carry a small bottle with a push-pull top in a front-worn fanny pack (along with compass, map, snake bite extractor, and usual pocket stuff. It’s about 6 oz, but keeps me sipping between hourly rest stops, and can be used as "running water" for dishwashing. Works for me. — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

– Jeff ORBS Classifieds – Free outdoor classified ads http://home.pacbell.net/orbs ORBS Escrow – Affordable safety for online buyers and sellers http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/oe-homepage.html

Response:

A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

You can’t do this. You will need at least a gallon a day. That’s over 30 pounds of just water the first day. Add in all your other gear and food and you get a pack weight that is just impossible for most people. If people won’t use the filters or pills, leave them at home. Before you go out for several days, you should try out all your gear for an over nighter. So, let these water carriers try the four day load for just one day and see how they do. Maybe that is the only way you can show them this is not a good idea. I would not start out with people carrying this kind of load because they are just going to screw up your trip. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Visit http://members.aol.com/MarvWelte/index.html for backpacking info.

Response:

I know I’d seriously be reconsidering whether or not I wanted to hike/camp with people who will not chose filtering, iodizing, or boiling. There’s foolish, ignorant, and really outstandingly foolish. These seem to fall into the last group. What other bad decisions are they apt to make? It’s obvious they’ve never hiked more than a mile and that without a heavy pack. What ideas do they have about what trails and hiking should be like that’ll turn out badly? Admittedly I take along a gallon or two of water when I do an overnight, but then I canoe camp. An extra 8 to 20 pounds in my canoe is no hassle. On my back it would be. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is absurd to suggest to carry all that water! It’s not like this guy is going on some desert trek in the Sahara. I say to look on your map if there are any springs by the trails, and use a water filter like everybody else or even more safe just boil your water. I have been using a water purifier/filter for many years ,I’m still alive and I still have all my hair on my head….. Cheers! … August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days. Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html Your suggestion that water should be "packed along the wearer’s spine" is an excellent suggestion. … The idea of packing dense stuff along the spine is to minimize the polar moment of inertia of the pack plus upper-body. It make the person more agile all day and less tired in the evening. For weekend warriors, it reduces the possibility of a back sprain and those Monday morning aches and pains. The only exception is liquid fueled stoves and liquid fuel bottles, which are dense but could leak into the pack. Best to put them in an outer pocket. Lots of packs have exterior water bottle pockets low on the side, so you can reach them without taking off the pack. A bum idea, because of the polar moment of inertia issue. I carry a small bottle with a push-pull top in a front-worn fanny pack (along with compass, map, snake bite extractor, and usual pocket stuff. It’s about 6 oz, but keeps me sipping between hourly rest stops, and can be used as "running water" for dishwashing. Works for me. — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

—– rec.backcountry vixen I only answer my email every few months, on average. Patience helps. http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Response:

It is absurd to suggest to carry all that water! It’s not like this guy is going on some desert trek in the Sahara. I say to look on your map if there are any springs by the trails, and use a water filter like everybody else or even more safe just boil your water. I have been using a water purifier/filter for many years ,I’m still alive and I still have all my hair on my head….. Cheers!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days. Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html Your suggestion that water should be "packed along the wearer’s spine" is an excellent suggestion. … The idea of packing dense stuff along the spine is to minimize the polar moment of inertia of the pack plus upper-body. It make the person more agile all day and less tired in the evening. For weekend warriors, it reduces the possibility of a back sprain and those Monday morning aches and pains. The only exception is liquid fueled stoves and liquid fuel bottles, which are dense but could leak into the pack. Best to put them in an outer pocket. Lots of packs have exterior water bottle pockets low on the side, so you can reach them without taking off the pack. A bum idea, because of the polar moment of inertia issue. I carry a small bottle with a push-pull top in a front-worn fanny pack (along with compass, map, snake bite extractor, and usual pocket stuff. It’s about 6 oz, but keeps me sipping between hourly rest stops, and can be used as "running water" for dishwashing. Works for me. — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

Response:

Since when is finding water a problem in VERMONT? Two liters per person is probably fine assuming they are bringing a filter.

Read the original post. The poster claimed that some had a fear/mistrust of water filters, and wanted to bring their own water. — Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at http://www.cauce.org/ It is there as an experiment to see if email spammers scan content — Pete Hickey | | VEIWIT University of Ottawa | | mirrors for Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| (613) 562-5800×1008 | dyslexics.

Response:

Guys, Since when is finding water a problem in VERMONT? Two liters per person is probably fine assuming they are bringing a filter. — Regards, Dave Physics Dept. Box 5820 Clarkson University Potsdam, NY 13676

Response:

I just found this site. http://www.vermont-st.com/longtrail/index Check it out! Happy Trails, jay (Monkton,VT) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Response:

Very nice! proper URL is http://www.vermont-st.com/longtrail/index.html — Yoyodog LT ‘88 "Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures", so now, "Go take a Hike!!!"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just found this site. http://www.vermont-st.com/longtrail/index Check it out! Happy Trails, jay (Monkton,VT) A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Response:

Carrying enough water for 4 days is purely ludicrous. The begin, any water that comes out of your tap at home is simply not as pure and clean as Spring water from the mountain side. Use a filter if you feel you must. Wanna convince your hiking partners about using water filters? Use the ankle bone connected to the leg bone explanation… Where did the water out of your tap come from? 1. The tap 2. The plumbing pipes to the city supply 3. The city water supply system 4. A reservoir or lake 5. The rivers that feed the reservoir or lake 6. The streams that feed the rivers 7. The creeks that feed the streams 8.The SPRINGS that feed the creeks. Contamination possibility increases the farther down the pipe you go. Its about animal feces and toxics from manucfacturing plants etc. The Spring is the FIRST source af all water supply and is usually high up in elevation. Conveniently, so is the LT. Furthermore, many backpackers drill holes in their toothbrush handles to reduce weight! Many messages in this thread describe the issue of weight of water…. If you want to scare off a bunch of hikers form enjoying backpacking in the future, go ahead and make them carry four days of water. Two quart size bottle are more than enough to keep in your pack. Keep them filled between Springs along the way. When I get to a Spring, I drink as much as I can and refill just before continuing on. I thru hiked the LT in 1988 and there were more than enough Springs along the way. Spring water is nature’s filter. Providing there is no Beaver pond or mining operation above it, you have no worry about contamination. As usual, if you are weary about drinking pure Spring water, use the filter. Tell me where on the LT you will be and I could name every (almost) Spring along the way. Or read the Guidebook to the LT, it names the Springs as well.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Response:

August in Vermont

Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per

an unknown. day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip.

If you plan on pushing hard, and you’ve got some big people there, four liters will not be enough. I have pushed hard enough that I’ve consumed 8 liters per day. Note also that the size plays a part. The small 100 pounder does not require tha same amount as a 200 pounder. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

– Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at http://www.cauce.org/ It is there as an experiment to see if email spammers scan content — Pete Hickey | | VEIWIT University of Ottawa | | mirrors for Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| (613) 562-5800×1008 | dyslexics.

Response:

Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per

Ever try gatorade bottles. I’ve never had one leak and they are free. They are semi widemouth and almost indestructable. I’ve been using them for years with not one leakage yet. Justin Justin Serpico Jr. Microbiology/Animal Science "Mother nature did a good job on this planet…and photography helps me appreciate it." Justin Serpico

Response:

Then you need to factor in water for meals. I’d say count on 4 quarts per day. thats 4 gallons of water per person. or 32 pounds of water. Have a good trip carrying 32 pounds of water. Justin Justin Serpico Jr. Microbiology/Animal Science "Mother nature did a good job on this planet…and photography helps me appreciate it." Justin Serpico

Just a note: the burden is greatest at the beginning of the trip–the longer you hike, the lighter your load gets. Still, I only consider the possibility because I live in the desert, where there may or may not be water available. I really can’t fathom carrying water when it is reliably available en route. My $.02 . . . If you need to get in touch, just remove what doesn’t belong in my address

Response:

A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

If you are implying carrying 4 days worth of water you are crazy. A person should drink about 3 quarts of water per day while doing anything remotely strenous. Then you need to factor in water for meals. I’d say count on 4 quarts per day. thats 4 gallons of water per person. or 32 pounds of water. Have a good trip carrying 32 pounds of water. Justin Justin Serpico Jr. Microbiology/Animal Science "Mother nature did a good job on this planet…and photography helps me appreciate it." Justin Serpico

Response:

Just a suggestion, if you prefer to carry water at your waist. CamelBak also makes waist pack hydration systems. The bladder sits in an insulated pocket, and some have extra storage space. Once again, hands free sipping from the big bite valve, water is kept cool and fresh, and the additional benefit of lumbar support. www.treasuresandmore.com/waistpacks.htm Geri Weaver

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days. Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html Your suggestion that water should be "packed along the wearer’s spine" is an excellent suggestion.

… The idea of packing dense stuff along the spine is to minimize the polar moment of inertia of the pack plus upper-body. It make the person more agile all day and less tired in the evening. For weekend warriors, it reduces the possibility of a back sprain and those Monday morning aches and pains. The only exception is liquid fueled stoves and liquid fuel bottles, which are dense but could leak into the pack. Best to put them in an outer pocket. Lots of packs have exterior water bottle pockets low on the side, so you can reach them without taking off the pack. A bum idea, because of the polar moment of inertia issue. I carry a small bottle with a push-pull top in a front-worn fanny pack (along with compass, map, snake bite extractor, and usual pocket stuff. It’s about 6 oz, but keeps me sipping between hourly rest stops, and can be used as "running water" for dishwashing. Works for me. — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

Response:

A group of us will be on the Long Trail this August in Vermont and I’m trying to figure out a general number to give people in terms of how much water they bring. We’ll have purifiers but some in the group are unwilling/don’t trust water purifiers and so I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Response:

… August in Vermont I’m trying to take into account how much one would need carry if they were going up and down mountains for four days.

Given the temperature and exertion level, I’d plan on four liters per day. After day-two you can reassess water consumption and dump the surplus, if any, or shorten your trip. Four liters times four days is 16 liters, plus 2 liters for emergency reserve, totals 18 liters. That’s about 36 pounds, but the weight will begin to decline as fast as you drink it, dropping to 4 pounds (the emergency reserve) at the end. Eighteen liters is about 1,100 cubic inches (add a few hundred for ineffeciencies. say 1,400 total) of pack space, and should be packed along the wearer’s spine. Water filters work, are light, and can be shared. Even if everyone bought his own, they are cheaper than twelve 1.5 liter bottles per — Jeff ORBS Bear Canisters – $68 delivered in USA, US$73 in Canada http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/bc-homepage.html

Response:

Posted in Camping Gear | No Comments » |

Large cities

Question:

And try to get a car out of the snow bank the snow plow just pushed two inches from your car or a parking lot with 15 cars strewn about ’cause the got stuck…. by the way people do get out of your way went your doing 75-80 in the fast lane

Are you refering to snow and ice conditions here, Bubba? If so, you’re definately right, I would get out of your way if you were doing 75 or 80 in the fast lane. I would also drive right past you after you buried yourself in a ditch or a snowbank……. Happy trails to

Response:

Bob- Ha Ha -Larry

Response:

David- So, you are saying that a unibody design is safer but not as comfortable a ride. Safer is better. But, I cannot believe that all 4×4s are unibodied. If a wielded body is for comfort, those luxury model must use that method. -Larry

Response:

Rick- True. a 4×4 can scare the hell out of car drivers when you try to avoid a pothole. -Larry

Response:

Harry- Do you think most folk living the a lare city hit the dirt? -Larry

Response:

Steve- I never thought about towing. Good point!!!! -Larry

Response:

Robert- I cannot image leaving every weekend. -Larry

Response:

Bubba Gump- Your right. The plow always covers m car. -Larry

Response:

There are poseurs in cities who like others to think they have an outdoor lifestyle. That is the only reason 98% of SUV buyers buy these vehicles. I wish they would go back to minivans and leave the trucks for those who use and abuse them!

Response:

by the way people do get out of your way went your doing 75-80 in the fast lane Are you refering to snow and ice conditions here, Bubba? If so, you’re definately right, I would get out of your way if you were doing 75 or 80 in the fast lane. I would also drive right past you after you buried yourself in a ditch or a snowbank……. Happy trails to

As a matter of fact I have spent many miles crusing at 75mph in snow conditions. That tends to be my cruising speed in my maximum sized SUV an if the conditions allow there is no problem with cruising at that speed in the right snow conditions. Often 2wd cars still pass me. 4 wheel drive van page: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest Tire chains, camping gear, tools,82 Bronco and some shooting stuff too.

Response:

Spend 5 days a week in Phoenix and you’ll look forward to the two days a week that you can take your 4×4 out away from all the crowds. Robert Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

Here, here. Also, if you have a 4×4 in the city you can make a left turn ANYWHERE. You don’t have to worry about any medians. :<)

Response:

Also, if you have a 4×4 in the city you can make a left turn ANYWHERE. You don’t have to worry about any medians. :<)

He, he, he! Doesn’t the wife HATE it when I do that! 4 wheel drive van page: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest Tire chains, camping gear, tools,82 Bronco and some shooting stuff too.

Response:

Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

Response:

Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

I can tell you never drove in a city. You simply can’t avoid a pothole. That would mostly likely mean swerving, possibly going into the next lane and there most certainly is a car there or someone that you’ll scare the shit out of. —

Response:

Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage?

Because we also drive in the dirt when we get out of the city. BTW: Front wheel drive does not handle snow and ice so well if you’re going uphill, unless you put chains on, and who wants to do that? — Harry Andreas the engineering raconteur replace baloney with computer to reply

Response:

I don’t live in a city. I will say that 12 inches plus of snow is impossible for a front wheel drive car. Now those sunny So. Cal. city dwellers who never off road, that kinda baffles me but, hey it’s their money. Don – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

Response:

Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

I don’t know, Larry. Why do people in large cities have guns, sleeping bags, hiking boots, skis, fishing gear, bathing suits, tennis rackets, golf clubs, bass boats, rock climbing equipment, etc……? I just dont’

Response:

I would say, for one is the safety. A 4×4’s construction is called a "unibody", meaning is sits on one frame. Smaller cars have several pieces welded together to make it ride better.

Response:

I would say, for one is the safety. A 4×4’s construction is called a "unibody", meaning is sits on one frame. Smaller cars have several pieces welded together to make it ride better.

WHAAAAT?!?! Unibody means the body IS the frame, as in 99.9% of all cars made today. Frame-on-body, oddly enough, means you have a separate body that is mounted on the frame, like on full size pick-ups and SUVs. You’ve got it completely bassackwards. Bob

Response:

I suppose that Phoenix would qualify as a ‘large’ city now that it has grown to sixth in the nation population-wise. I can answer your question since that’s where I live. The main reason that I bought my 4X4 was to tow a large, heavy boat trailer. Sure makes it easy getting up those slippery ramps. It’s also a lot of fun taking it out into the desert and up into the mountains, and being able to escape from the ‘passenger car’ crowd. One other thing that I discovered after I bought it. I just plain like the feel of driving it. It’s big, heavy, powerful and fun! Steve "59" is spam blocker.

: Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you : can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the : advantage? : -Larry

Response:

I would say, for one is the safety. A 4×4’s construction is called a "unibody", meaning is sits on one frame. Smaller cars have several pieces welded together to make it ride better.

Weeeaaaalllll….not exactly. 4×4’s that have frames are not unitbody, or unibody’s. Those are ones **without** frames. There are 4×4’s with and without frames, btw.

Response:

And try to get a car out of the snow bank the snow plow just pushed two inches from your car or a parking lot with 15 cars strewn about ’cause the got stuck…. by the way people do get out of your way went your doing 75-80 in the fast lane – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I don’t live in a city. I will say that 12 inches plus of snow is impossible for a front wheel drive car. Now those sunny So. Cal. city dwellers who never off road, that kinda baffles me but, hey it’s their money. Don Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

Response:

Spend 5 days a week in Phoenix and you’ll look forward to the two days a week that you can take your 4×4 out away from all the crowds. Robert

Why do people in large cities have 4×4s? Potholes are a pain, but you can avoid them. Front wheel drive handles snow/ice. What is the advantage? -Larry

Response:

Posted in Camping Gear | No Comments » |

Supercharger/Bronco report(long)

Question:

– First the powder, then the wadding! Tamp, tamp, tamp! Sorry Derace, I feel like a moron for asking this… (but)… a) You call the Paxton "tame". What exactly do you mean and which superchargers would give better numbers on my ‘87 Bronco with a 302?

Very appropriate questions. I’m just trying to convey the fact that you shouldn’t expect miracles, i.e. don’t expect twice the horsepower. When I say that I get 6 pounds of boost maximum( 40% increase), that really means that at full throttle acceleration, just before the tranny shifts at around 4200 rpm, the supercharger is giving 6 pounds of boost. Of course during the rest of the time, the boost is proportionately less and if you aren’t full throttle, you are getting much less boost than maximum. And that gives only a modest increase in horsepower. Most of the time you are getting much less than maximum, so don’t expect it to squeal the tires, although mine will sometimes chirp second and third! (I’ve got a shift kit too.) On smaller displacement engines, for a given supercharger, you will get proportionately more boost. Your 302, being 14% smaller in displacement than my 351W, should give you 14% more boost than I get with the same supercharger setup. A nice increase for sure and not very likely to require engine mods. From what I’ve read, much beyond 5 pounds of boost, you have to start considering beefing up the engine and drive train. Your 302 is also a pretty stout engine and the drive train retains its robust history so I don’t think that would be a problem. Paxton has some killer streetable stuff in the Novi line now. You could get way more boost with this model than my SN93. Number such as 12 to 25 pounds of boost for small block engines(I think). Now you’re talkin’ big time increase!!!! Be careful. Vortec also makes several sizes of chargers. Ken Belle uses Whipple chargers(very good at lower rpm’s I’ve heard). b) Why and what do you have to upgrade when you add a supercharger?

I changed nothing on the vehicle. The Paxton kit includes a fuel pressure bypass device that raises the fuel rail pressure to the pump maximum whenever there is more than 2 pounds of boost. This insures that the injectors can deliver the needed gas. I did get two Paxton upgrades to my kit: (1) the high output impeller($350 extra) and (2) the supercharger lubrication/drive fluid radiator cooler kit($400). I also installed a MSD boost timing master ignition module($400) to prevent detonation. c) So are you saying you’re pleased with the Paxton at sea level?

Basically, I am very pleased with the kit at all altitudes. I just don’t want anyone to get the impression that miracles occur. The Paxton does exactly what I should have expected it to do. If I am disappointed, it would be because I had unrealistic expectations. later, Derace

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — First the powder, then the wadding! Tamp, tamp, tamp! Sorry Derace, I feel like a moron for asking this… (but)… a) You call the Paxton "tame". What exactly do you mean and which superchargers would give better numbers on my ‘87 Bronco with a 302? Very appropriate questions. I’m just trying to convey the fact that you shouldn’t expect miracles, i.e. don’t expect twice the horsepower. When I say that I get 6 pounds of boost maximum( 40% increase), that really means that at full throttle acceleration, just before the tranny shifts at around 4200 rpm, the supercharger is giving 6 pounds of boost. Of course during the rest of the time, the boost is proportionately less and if you aren’t full throttle, you are getting much less boost than maximum. And that gives only a modest increase in horsepower. Most of the time you are getting much less than maximum, so don’t expect it to squeal the tires, although mine will sometimes chirp second and third! (I’ve got a shift kit too.) On smaller displacement engines, for a given supercharger, you will get proportionately more boost. Your 302, being 14% smaller in displacement than my 351W, should give you 14% more boost than I get with the same supercharger setup. A nice increase for sure and not very likely to require engine mods. From what I’ve read, much beyond 5 pounds of boost, you have to start considering beefing up the engine and drive train. Your 302 is also a pretty stout engine and the drive train retains its robust history so I don’t think that would be a problem. Paxton has some killer streetable stuff in the Novi line now. You could get way more boost with this model than my SN93. Number such as 12 to 25 pounds of boost for small block engines(I think). Now you’re talkin’ big time increase!!!! Be careful. Vortec also makes several sizes of chargers. Ken Belle uses Whipple chargers(very good at lower rpm’s I’ve heard). b) Why and what do you have to upgrade when you add a supercharger? I changed nothing on the vehicle. The Paxton kit includes a fuel pressure bypass device that raises the fuel rail pressure to the pump maximum whenever there is more than 2 pounds of boost. This insures that the injectors can deliver the needed gas. I did get two Paxton upgrades to my kit: (1) the high output impeller($350 extra) and (2) the supercharger lubrication/drive fluid radiator cooler kit($400). I also installed a MSD boost timing master ignition module($400) to prevent detonation. c) So are you saying you’re pleased with the Paxton at sea level? Basically, I am very pleased with the kit at all altitudes. I just don’t want anyone to get the impression that miracles occur. The Paxton does exactly what I should have expected it to do. If I am disappointed, it would be because I had unrealistic expectations. later, Derace

Thanks very much, Derace! Makes a lot more sense to me now… one last question if I may… did you install it yourself? If so, how long did it take you? If not, what were your labor charges? (well, I THOUGHT it was only going to be one more question) {:^) -chris ~My rig’s fun is never done~ To reply stop "laughing" at me! {;^) http://www.selectrec.com

Response:

I installed it myself(I’ve been doing all my own shade tree mechanic work for many years). It took about 8 leisurely hours. It is not very difficult to install. Anyone who does minor repairs on their own vehicle will have no difficulty doing the installation. later, Derace – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks very much, Derace! Makes a lot more sense to me now… one last question if I may… did you install it yourself? If so, how long did it take you? If not, what were your labor charges? (well, I THOUGHT it was only going to be one more question) {:^) -chris ~My rig’s fun is never done~ To reply stop "laughing" at me! {;^) http://www.selectrec.com

Response:

Well, after having the Paxton supercharger on my ‘94 Bronco for almost <EXCELLENT STUFF SNIPPED

Excellent post, Derace! Did you have to do any mods to the fuel injection after installation? Any effect on fuel mileage in normal driving? Any durabiliy worries after 3 years? 4 wheel drive van page: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest Tire chains, camping gear, tools,82 Bronco and some shooting stuff too.

Response:

– First the powder, then the wadding! Tamp, tamp, tamp! Well, after having the Paxton supercharger on my ‘94 Bronco for almost <EXCELLENT STUFF SNIPPED Excellent post, Derace! Did you have to do any mods to the fuel injection after installation?

No mods, but I am wondering if larger injectors and an upgrade fuel pump would be beneficial. Any effect on fuel mileage in normal driving?

If you tread lightly on the gas pedal, there is no change; however, the engine is so much more fun and responsive, it is difficult not using that extra horsepower and consequently you can degrade your fuel mileage. I average about 12 mpg city, and 15 highway if I’m not going too fast. At altitude this past trip I averaged 16.5 mpg! Wow, when the twisting roads keep you from going over 45 mph and there isn’t enough oxygen to generate much horsepower you get really great gas mileage!!!! Any durabiliy worries after 3 years?

A good question. My thoughts are that the 351W is a good old design that originally put out more horsepower in some configurations than my supercharged version does, so I think that as long as I’m not racing from stop light to stop light with the pedal to the metal, I should get reasonable life expectancy. Of course the more horsepower you ask from an engine, the shorter its life span, but I think the 351W can handle it pretty well. I’ve got 80K miles on it and must say I’ve had very little trouble with the truck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 4 wheel drive van page: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest Tire chains, camping gear, tools,82 Bronco and some shooting stuff too.

Response:

Well, after having the Paxton supercharger on my ‘94 Bronco for almost three years here in Houston, I finally made it back to the Durango/Silverton/Ouray area over Labor Day. In a previous non-supercharged visit on that long 17% grade north of Durango, it was difficult to maintain speed without resorting to second gear; however, with the supercharger, I had no problem cruising up at 70 mph in third gear (overdrive turned off of course). On other sections of the San Juan Skyway, passing was a little easier since I was getting about 1 to 2 pounds of boost(maximum, as well as I could tell from glancing at the gauge plus I’m trying to keep from running off the road!) even at altitudes around 10 000 feet.(No, I didn’t really need any extra horsepower between Silverton and Ouray. Sheesh! I’m glad I wasn’t driving from Ouray to Silverton! Yikes! White knuckles!) The supercharger provides no significant advantage in my type off highway travel. I had no trouble going up Cinnamon Pass last visit. Engine rpm’s are too low for the Paxton to develop any boost and I don’t do any wheelin’ that requires anything other than low and slow. However, in lowrange and 1st gear there would be some boost available at reasonable ground speeds although I didn’t get a chance to check this out on this trip. All in all, a noticeable increase in useable horsepower for highway cruising although by no means a radical transformation at altitude. A 351W is a little too large a displacement to get radical boost numbers with the tame SN93 Paxton(even with high output impeller, Paxta-trac boost fluid and radiator cooler). Normal caution in estimating passing distance was still required. I’m still wondering if turbochargers are more effective for high altitude highway cruising; but the easy self-installation(8 hours) and price ($3500, ‘charger plus upgrades and the MSD)of the Paxton wins hands down compared to what must be a nightmare to retrofit a turbo! Here in Houston I get a maximum of 6 pounds of boost; far more than 93 octane can handle without leaving a couple degrees/pound boost retard dialed in on the MSD boost timing master. Quite a nice increase in performance at sea level(:-) later, Derace — First the powder, then the wadding! Tamp, tamp, tamp!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, after having the Paxton supercharger on my ‘94 Bronco for almost three years here in Houston, I finally made it back to the Durango/Silverton/Ouray area over Labor Day. In a previous non-supercharged visit on that long 17% grade north of Durango, it was difficult to maintain speed without resorting to second gear; however, with the supercharger, I had no problem cruising up at 70 mph in third gear (overdrive turned off of course). On other sections of the San Juan Skyway, passing was a little easier since I was getting about 1 to 2 pounds of boost(maximum, as well as I could tell from glancing at the gauge plus I’m trying to keep from running off the road!) even at altitudes around 10 000 feet.(No, I didn’t really need any extra horsepower between Silverton and Ouray. Sheesh! I’m glad I wasn’t driving from Ouray to Silverton! Yikes! White knuckles!) The supercharger provides no significant advantage in my type off highway travel. I had no trouble going up Cinnamon Pass last visit. Engine rpm’s are too low for the Paxton to develop any boost and I don’t do any wheelin’ that requires anything other than low and slow. However, in lowrange and 1st gear there would be some boost available at reasonable ground speeds although I didn’t get a chance to check this out on this trip. All in all, a noticeable increase in useable horsepower for highway cruising although by no means a radical transformation at altitude. A 351W is a little too large a displacement to get radical boost numbers with the tame SN93 Paxton(even with high output impeller, Paxta-trac boost fluid and radiator cooler). Normal caution in estimating passing distance was still required. I’m still wondering if turbochargers are more effective for high altitude highway cruising; but the easy self-installation(8 hours) and price ($3500, ‘charger plus upgrades and the MSD)of the Paxton wins hands down compared to what must be a nightmare to retrofit a turbo! Here in Houston I get a maximum of 6 pounds of boost; far more than 93 octane can handle without leaving a couple degrees/pound boost retard dialed in on the MSD boost timing master. Quite a nice increase in performance at sea level(:-) later, Derace — First the powder, then the wadding! Tamp, tamp, tamp!

Sorry Derace, I feel like a moron for asking this… (but)… a) You call the Paxton "tame". What exactly do you mean and which superchargers would give better numbers on my ‘87 Bronco with a 302? b) Why and what do you have to upgrade when you add a supercharger? c) So are you saying you’re pleased with the Paxton at sea level? Thanks in advance, {:^) -chris ~My rig’s fun is never done~ To reply stop "laughing" at me! {;^) http://www.selectrec.com

Response:

Posted in Camping Gear | No Comments » |

Monterey-Salinas (CA) Campgrounds – Rental Units?

Question:

Looking for suggestions – comments on campgrounds in the Monterey – Salinas area with rental units…have found a few on the net so evaluations of Big Sur Campground & Cabins Riverside Campground & Cabins (Big Sur) Cabana Holiday Rv Park (Salinas) Saddle Mountain (Carmel Valley) Santa Cruz KOA appreciated as would be suggestions of any not here. Thanks….Greg

Response:

Looking for suggestions – comments on campgrounds in the Monterey – Salinas area with rental units…have found a few on the net so evaluations of Big Sur Campground & Cabins Riverside Campground & Cabins (Big Sur) Cabana Holiday Rv Park (Salinas) Saddle Mountain (Carmel Valley) Santa Cruz KOA appreciated as would be suggestions of any not here. Thanks….Greg

As a 15-year resident of the Monterey Bay area, here are my opinions: Skip the Salinas listing — unless you enjoy camping alongside a major freeway (Highway 101). You don’t mention when you’ll be visiting, and our seasons do have distinct weather patterns. If you’re here in summer or early fall, Carmel will be hot and Big Sur might be as well, but the Santa Cruz KOA (between Watsonville and Aptos) will probably have cool AM and PM fog, with sun from late AM to around dusk. Winter is the rainy season for all of the areas you’ve listed. The Santa Cruz KOA is not on the water, but within just 2 minutes drive time of a great state beach (Manresa) and about 20 minutes south of the Santa Cruz Boardwalk (great amusement park right on the sand) and 30 minutes or so north of Monterey/Carmel and 90 minutes north of Big Sur. If you want spectacular — Big Sur. If you want warm and somewhat urban — Carmel. If you want beach town atmosphere — Santa Cruz KOA. Be glad to answer any other questions you might have — –maria — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – THE HAWAIIAN MUSIC ISLAND http://www.mele.com <<<<<<<<<<<<< featuring a worldwide calendar of Hawaiian music concerts <<<<<<<< "Music of Hawai’i" KHDC 90.9 FM Salinas CA <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< every Sunday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Response:

Looking for suggestions – comments on campgrounds in the Monterey – Salinas area with rental units…have found a few on the net so evaluations of Big Sur Campground & Cabins Riverside Campground & Cabins (Big Sur) Cabana Holiday Rv Park (Salinas) Saddle Mountain (Carmel Valley) Santa Cruz KOA appreciated as would be suggestions of any not here. Thanks….Greg

We just stayed at the Saddle Mountain RV park and found it to be very nice. It’s about a 15 minute drive to the Cannery Row/Fisherman’s Wharf area. Great Pool, good facilities. Don’t let the narrrow single lane bridge across the bridge scare you. It is narrow, but Class A’s have no problem. There are two parks side-by-side, so when you come to a split in the road, go to the left and up to get to Saddle Mountain. You’re Welcome….Tom

Response:

Posted in Camping Park | No Comments » |

staying dry

Question:

: I’ll argue this point a little. I have a couple of cheap plastic ones, : and they work fine. They tend to tear sometimes, but duct tape makes : a good repair. A good high quality poncho runs about $50, while the : Actually you can get a good high quality poncho from your local army surplus : store. Mine was $5 used. I have had it for 3 years now. They didn’t : have any used ones when I bought my daughter’s, so her’s cost me $15, last : year. Yeah, but you need to be careful. I bought a used poncho without looking at it closely, and when I needed it I discovered it leaked. I assume it was worn out. I don’t know what criteria the military uses to toss old poncho’s, but I’m pretty sure they don’t toss new ones.

Response:

I’ll argue this point a little. I have a couple of cheap plastic ones, and they work fine. They tend to tear sometimes, but duct tape makes a good repair. A good high quality poncho runs about $50, while the Actually you can get a good high quality poncho from your local army surplus store. Mine was $5 used. I have had it for 3 years now. They didn’t have any used ones when I bought my daughter’s, so her’s cost me $15, last year.

But how does a $5 poncho outperform a $250 gortex set of raingear????? Could it be because it fits so loosly that you have plenty of air circulation?????

Response:

: I’ll argue this point a little. I have a couple of cheap plastic ones, : and they work fine. They tend to tear sometimes, but duct tape makes : a good repair. A good high quality poncho runs about $50, while the : Actually you can get a good high quality poncho from your local army surplus : store. Mine was $5 used. I have had it for 3 years now. They didn’t : have any used ones when I bought my daughter’s, so her’s cost me $15, last : year. Yeah, but you need to be careful. I bought a used poncho without looking at it closely, and when I needed it I discovered it leaked. I assume it was worn out. I don’t know what criteria the military uses to toss old poncho’s, but I’m pretty sure they don’t toss new ones.

You’re correct. I bought a "casualty blanket" locally. These are better known as the "All Weather Space Blanket". I got it home and found it had been patched w/ OD tape. One has to beware. The military ponchos are nice. I carry two when I go packing because they can be snapped together into a variety of fun shelters . I just got an order for one poncho to use as a rain/wind break over the hammocks in the same order, so a few others out there are fans of military ponchos too . — DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

Response:

But we also weren’t doing any serious climbing – walking on flat ground in a poncho is fine, but you can’t see your feet all that well in one, and it would get tangled up if you were climbing something steep. Here, I’d use rain pants and jacket. Also, a good wind will render a poncho a useless, flapping nuisance. But it is true, if you do go with a poncho, get a really good one – the cheaper ones just don’t work.

Tie a string around your waist and over the poncho. This will Keep the poncho from flapping around. With a little string and a maybe a stick or two you should be able to use a big poncho for a make shift tent. (A frame type) -David Saunders

Response:

(stuff deleted) name it). I finally settled on the winner. Sierra Designs MicroLite anorak and pant combo. These are marketed as ‘water and wind resistant’ but the folks at SD are modest. This stuff keeps you damn dry. (…..) he hikes alone. They’re made of ripstop nylon, just like the tent flys, so they’re super lightweight, and each piece goes into little stuffsacks no bigger than a couple guinea pigs. Best of all, they sell for about $30, each piece.

They are good for the price. Make a nice lightweight rain suit to carry in your daypack when rain is not expected. I don’t know why outfitters get behind Gore the way they do, there must be some serious profit in it. My point is, you can’t stay dry in fishtank conditions if your rain gear "breathes". Moisture will, eventually and inevitably, soak through. You have to repel the water to stay dry. Try it; hit yourself with a garden hose while wrapped in your tent fly. Then do the same wearing GoreTex. You’ll get the point. As for the sweat factor, it’s like I said, you go a lot slower in the rain anyway, and with cotton clothes under- neath, you’ll be comfortable in any downpour.

Well you won’t be permitted on any of my snow or winter climbs. Cotton under a rubber suit might be OK in the tropics, but is not safe most of the time in the NW. While you might feel warm while hiking in this setup, you could get real cold in a hurry if you stopped. Cotton would lose all its insulating value when it got sweat soaked under these conditions. This last weekend, had a chance to test the theory that waterproof non breatheable gear keeps you drier. A group of us hiked 3800 ft and 5 miles up the Columbia Gorge (Ruckles Ridge), in the rain. Most had goretex, but several had the Patagonia non-goretex stuff. They were much wetter at the end than those with goretex. I this case, sweat was the major contributor to wetness, has it almost always is when hiking, IMO. Sorry for the length of this article, but I had to get this off my chest. I’m tired of hearing people go on and on about the "wonders" of "breathable" rain gear. In Thomas Edison’s original laboratory are his original cobalt lightbulbs. They

^^^^^^ carbon!! burn them ten hours a day, every day since he died. The same bulbs. We could make these bulbs today for about $1.50 each, but why do you suppose they don’t? That’s right. No money in lightbulbs that outlast the company that makes them.

The original lamps are very inefficient (30% that of modern tungsten incandescent lamps, which are not very efficent either!) You can get the same life by running modern bulbs with lower voltage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Save your money. Stick with the tried and true and avoid "new and improved" stuff companies try to sell you. Ken Barrett

Response:

Why is it that Gore coats the fabric with the water repellent finish if it’s already waterproof?

Hmmm, perhaps so the fabric itself does not get waterlogged and contribute to an evaporative cooling effect which would cause condensation inside of the jacket. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to manufacture without the coating?

My guess is that the cost savings of removing the DWR (durable water repellent) would be negligable. You can respray your garment with Tectron for just a couple of dollars. I would expect it do be quite cheap to apply during the manufacturing process. I would guess this is because either the public is too stupid to realize that a waterproof fabric does not necessarily have to have the water bead up to be waterproof or that the fabric is not waterproof without the coating.

Well, I wouldn’t disagree with your comment about the public not believing in waterproof fabric without beading, but I think the above answer is a more reasonable explanation. From my experience, Gortex is not quite as nice in the rain as they would like you to think and at $100-$500 for a suit of teflon coated fabric I would expect more.

Everyone on the ‘net is constantly harping on the cost of Gore-tex garments, so I have a question. Why is the non-Gore-tex WP/B (waterproof/breathable) raingear also over $100? I am NOT referring to the simple PVC raingear that you can purchase at K-Mart, but ones with pit-zips, adjustable hoods, waists and wrists, sealed seams, and storm flaps. —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [stuff deleted] …I finally settled on the winner. Sierra Designs MicroLite anorak and pant combo. These are marketed as ‘water and wind resistant’ but the folks at SD are modest. This stuff keeps you damn dry. My Dad has REI’s elements, and my Mom has Helly Hansen rain gear. They paid $259 each for these outfits and they never stay as dry as I do when we hike together. Here’s a wager; hike with me in the Hoh Rain Forest (Olympic Peninsula, 142 inches of rain per year) for a week in April with your choice of GoreTex clothing. I’ll wear my SD Microlite (with gaiters). You’ll be heading for the car after two days – with my rain gear! In fact, my Dad borrows the jacket when he hikes alone. They’re made of ripstop nylon, just like the tent flys, so they’re super lightweight, and each piece goes into little stuffsacks no bigger than a couple guinea pigs. Best of all, they sell for about $30, each piece. I don’t know why outfitters get behind Gore the way they do, there must be some serious profit in it. My point is, you can’t stay dry in fishtank conditions if your rain gear "breathes". Moisture will, eventually and inevitably, soak through. You have to repel the water to stay dry. Try it; hit yourself with a garden hose while wrapped in your tent fly. Then do the same wearing GoreTex. You’ll get the point. As for the sweat factor, it’s like I said, you go a lot slower in the rain anyway, and with cotton clothes under- neath, you’ll be comfortable in any downpour. Sorry for the length of this article, but I had to get this off my chest. I’m tired of hearing people go on and on about the "wonders" of "breathable" rain gear. In Thomas Edison’s original laboratory are his original cobalt lightbulbs. They burn them ten hours a day, every day since he died. The same bulbs. We could make these bulbs today for about $1.50 each, but why do you suppose they don’t? That’s right. No money in lightbulbs that outlast the company that makes them. Save your money. Stick with the tried and true and avoid "new and improved" stuff companies try to sell you.

I agree with most everything you had to say, especially the comments about Gortex. Why is it that Gore coats the fabric with the water repellent finish if it’s already waterproof? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to manufacture without the coating? I would guess this is because either the public is too stupid to realize that a waterproof fabric does not necessarily have to have the water bead up to be waterproof or that the fabric is not waterproof without the coating. From my experience, Gortex is not quite as nice in the rain as they would like you to think and at $100-$500 for a suit of teflon coated fabric I would expect more. Craig

Response:

But how does a $5 poncho outperform a $250 gortex set of raingear????? Could it be because it fits so loosly that you have plenty of air circulation?????

I think the question should be how does a $5 poncho outperform a $250 gortex set of raingear…I stay plenty dry in a poncho and boots, and my pack stays dry also! I don’t believe in spending money, just to have the newest and latest, when the old works fine! Lynn

Response:

Yeah, but you need to be careful. I bought a used poncho without looking at it closely, and when I needed it I discovered it leaked. I assume it was worn out. I don’t know what criteria the military uses to toss old poncho’s, but I’m pretty sure they

Any time you buy anything used it should be checked carefully! Our army surplus does not just get it’s stuff from the army. Vets often take their stuff there to get rid of it. And it DOES sell NEW items, new being items that have never been used by anyone. Lynn

Response:

But how does a $5 poncho outperform a $250 gortex set of raingear????? Could it be because it fits so loosly that you have plenty of air circulation?????

Plus ponchos don’t require you to take off your pack. If you are from the Northwest this is a big plus (rain on, rain off, rain on …)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I was wondering if some people could offer some sort of help wrt staying dry : on a camping trip where the weather does not co-operate. : When taking free advise, remember you get what you pay for: Mine is free also! : After trying rainsuits for several years, I have decided that a GOOD nylon : rain poncho is the best solution. Be careful, do not get one of the cheap : plastic ones, they do not last. I’ll argue this point a little. I have a couple of cheap plastic ones, and they work fine. They tend to tear sometimes, but duct tape makes a good repair. A good high quality poncho runs about $50, while the cheap plastic ones can be had for about a buck-and-a-half. Since I don’t wear them often, it’s not worth the $50. And since they don’t last, I have two. I will agree that a poncho is the best bet. There’s enough ventilation so you don’t feel like you’re in a sauna, and they have several other uses as well.

I just wanted to throw in my .02 here: I live in the rainy PNW, and don’t like to get wet any more than the next guy. The best thing I’ve found so far for backpacking weather protection is an outer shell of a waterproof breathable fabric (Goretex, or REI Elements for example). I also carry a fleece pullover and pants, and wicking long underwear. The only other things I add (for summer) is shorts and a short-sleeve shirt. I don’t get wet, and if it gets cold, I don’t feel it. The beauty of this is that I can carry practically the same clothing no matter when or where I camp. I’ve used this setup in January on the Pacific Coast range, in February in the Cascades, in all sorts of weather. Never have I been cold or wet. Of course, the drawback is cost. It’ll set you back at least a couple of hundred bucks. Fortunately, I live near the Columbia Sportswear outlet. — Atlas Telecom | electrons, which you cannot see unless you have been Portland, OR | drinking." — This message printed with 100% recycled electrons —

Response:

((((much debate about rainsuits and ponchos deleted)))) As I see it, there’s no end all statement to be made regarding whether(weather) to get a poncho(durable or cheapo) or a rainsuit. It all depends on how much weight you feel like carrying, how hot it is, how active you will be, and how much money you have to spend. Having used the US army poncho( quite nice) and cheapo ponchos as well as a goretex rainsuit. I will put in my two cents, hell , I’ll even throw in an extra penny Cheap ponchos pro- cheap lightweight compressible good ventilation con- easily destroyed tend to be small snags easily high quality ponchos pro- large hard to rip decent ventilation can be a makeshift shelter or vapor barrier liner con- bulky expensive (not as expensive as goretex tho) snags easily rainsuit pro- keeps you very, very dry moves with the body, snags less, esp. off trail feels like wearing another layer of clothing, not a bedspread con- expensive, close to $200 for Gore-Tex brand, similar materials without the name can be had for much less not well ventilated for hot days not as durable as good quality poncho Hope this helps. Mark Borgerding

Response:

don’t like to get wet any more than the next guy. The best thing I’ve found so far for backpacking weather protection is an outer shell of a waterproof breathable fabric (Goretex, or REI Elements for example). I also carry a fleece pullover and pants, and wicking long underwear.

I take the same thing as Brant minus the fleece pants after May (I have a pair of Goretex pants too that I rarely use in Sierra). I also take a Dana Pack cover that will cover my head and back. This covers my Goretex jacket when the water really comes down. As I think most will agree, Goretex will reach a point of saturation in a deluge. My parka doesn’t leak, it becomes damp on the shoulders (zips in the pits help with the internal condensation). I prefer pullover Goretex parkas with minimal seams. Dave

Response:

In the days before I had any decent gear (which I DO remember fondly, actually), I hiked in jeans and wore an old army poncho. It was a crappy setup, sure, but I was convinced that hiking, especially Washington hiking, was just a wet endeavor regardless. The poncho kept my head and upper body dry, but the underbrush still soaked my pants, which then wicked onto my wool socks, which then carried the water – very efficiently – right down into my boots. (Mmmm. Excuse my reverie at the memory). Oh, the joy of dumping out my boots when I finally dropped my pack! And then the wringing of the socks. And then trying to get both boots and socks dry before I broke camp. And then.. oh, you know the routine. Or maybe some of you don’t! (Lucky bastards). After years of this misery, I finally wised up and bought some decent rain gear. It was heavy and hot rubber stuff, but I was dry! Actually, since I hike slower in the rain because of slippery footing on log bridges and slabs, I didn’t work up too much of a sweat. But, like all my gear, I had to upgrade eventually, and after many years of soggy field testing in the wet, wetter, and submerged forests of the Pacific Northwest, trying every material I could get my hands on (plastic, rubber, GoreTex garbage bags – you name it). I finally settled on the winner. Sierra Designs MicroLite anorak and pant combo. These are marketed as ‘water and wind resistant’ but the folks at SD are modest. This stuff keeps you damn dry. My Dad has REI’s elements, and my Mom has Helly Hansen rain gear. They paid $259 each for these outfits and they never stay as dry as I do when we hike together. Here’s a wager; hike with me in the Hoh Rain Forest (Olympic Peninsula, 142 inches of rain per year) for a week in April with your choice of GoreTex clothing. I’ll wear my SD Microlite (with gaiters). You’ll be heading for the car after two days – with my rain gear! In fact, my Dad borrows the jacket when he hikes alone. They’re made of ripstop nylon, just like the tent flys, so they’re super lightweight, and each piece goes into little stuffsacks no bigger than a couple guinea pigs. Best of all, they sell for about $30, each piece. I don’t know why outfitters get behind Gore the way they do, there must be some serious profit in it. My point is, you can’t stay dry in fishtank conditions if your rain gear "breathes". Moisture will, eventually and inevitably, soak through. You have to repel the water to stay dry. Try it; hit yourself with a garden hose while wrapped in your tent fly. Then do the same wearing GoreTex. You’ll get the point. As for the sweat factor, it’s like I said, you go a lot slower in the rain anyway, and with cotton clothes under- neath, you’ll be comfortable in any downpour. Sorry for the length of this article, but I had to get this off my chest. I’m tired of hearing people go on and on about the "wonders" of "breathable" rain gear. In Thomas Edison’s original laboratory are his original cobalt lightbulbs. They burn them ten hours a day, every day since he died. The same bulbs. We could make these bulbs today for about $1.50 each, but why do you suppose they don’t? That’s right. No money in lightbulbs that outlast the company that makes them. Save your money. Stick with the tried and true and avoid "new and improved" stuff companies try to sell you. Ken Barrett

Response:

However, rubber boots would be miserable to hike anything steep in or to hike with a heavy load for very long, as they give little/no support.

I beg to differ! (once again And yes, definately do Seam-Seal your tent well.

As I’ve understood it, seam leakage is neglible compared to condensation, except in the seams in the tent floor (better if there are none). I suppose it may depend on the quality of the tent though. If the rainfly material stretches, the pin holes in the seam grow and leak. In a high quality tent this is less of a problem, especially if the thread absorbs water and swells and thus fills the holes. Markus Bjorksten

Response:

Opinion on ponchos as rain weather clothing: Better get a hihg quality one, typically PVC coated polyamid. Military ones are good but heavy. Low quality rain weather gear often tears easily, especially as it gets fragile in cold wether. Such equipment has no place as bc equipment, imo. Pros: – Multiuse (shelter, ground cloth, river crossing, stretchers..) – Good ventilation – Small/medium packing can be worn under – Simple, thus durable – Good protection & comfort when staying still – Cheap Cons: – Heavy (Eg. Finnish Army, 1.1kg + 0.30kg(rain legs) – Awkward in difficult terrain (gets stepped on..) – Uncomfortable with large packing (arm protection and ventilation get worse..) – Insufficient protection of arms when active, esp. if skiing – High air resistance (cycling, high wind..) If moving through underwegetation, separate leg protection is needed. Eg. rain legs, which attach to belt. IMO, a poncho is not worth while, unless its multiuse capability is needed. Ordinary rain weather trousers + jacket usually perform better. No comment on Gore-Tex here, it is in another league. Markus Bjorksten

Response:

The author below advocates use of ponchos instead of rain suits – in some cases this is probably true, i.e. when I was in South America, Amazon basin, where it was just too bloody hot to be encased in a coat and pants, we used ponchos. But we also weren’t doing any serious climbing – walking on flat ground in a poncho is fine, but you can’t see your feet all that well in one, and it would get tangled up if you were climbing something steep. Here, I’d use rain pants and jacket. Also, a good wind will render a poncho a useless, flapping nuisance. But it is true, if you do go with a poncho, get a really good one – the cheaper ones just don’t work. As for footwear, depends what you’re doing and where. Again, in South America, where we were often up to our mid-calves in wet mud, we either used rubber boots or jungle boots, which wet through but had drainage holes to allow the water to run out. However, rubber boots would be miserable to hike anything steep in or to hike with a heavy load for very long, as they give little/no support. And yes, definately do Seam-Seal your tent well. Look for one where the rain fly coms down nearly to the ground, too – those cheap dome tents with the little rain flys that look like the tent’s wearing a hat just do not work.

| I was wondering if some people could offer some sort of help wrt staying dry | on a camping trip where the weather does not co-operate. | | I’ll give my answers based on 17 years of frequent camping — mostly with | Boy Scout Troops — both in the Southwest (New Mexico, Colorado) and the | Upper Mid-West (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana). When taking free advise, | remember you get what you pay for: | | 1. Recommendations for a rainsuit – what types are the best? are stitched and | sealed seams necessary or will welded plastic seams do? | | After trying rainsuits for several years, I have decided that a GOOD nylon | rain poncho is the best solution. Be careful, do not get one of the cheap | plastic ones, they do not last. A good nylon poncho will work in almost | any outdoor situation except bicycling and motorcycling — and some people | may even use them for these activities. Additionally, your poncho will | double as a tarp, ground cloth and several other useful items on days | without rain. They are less expensive than rain suites also. | | | 2. Footwear – what type of footwear is the best? do people take rubber boots | along with them or just a change of footwear? | | I usually just bring a change of footwear. I don’t even own rubber boots. | | 3. Tent – last year our tent leaked somewhat during a moderate to heavy 24 | hour rainfall. Are there any suggestions to reduce/eliminate water from | entering the tent. | | A couple of suggestions: Seam Seal the tent to eliminate leaks around | the seam, and use a plastic ground cloth slightly smaller than the tent to | prevent seepage from under the floor. | | Thanks in advance for any input. | Scott Webb | | Your Welcome | Ronald B. Oakes |

Response:

: I was wondering if some people could offer some sort of help wrt staying dry : on a camping trip where the weather does not co-operate. : When taking free advise, remember you get what you pay for: Mine is free also! : After trying rainsuits for several years, I have decided that a GOOD nylon : rain poncho is the best solution. Be careful, do not get one of the cheap : plastic ones, they do not last. I’ll argue this point a little. I have a couple of cheap plastic ones, and they work fine. They tend to tear sometimes, but duct tape makes a good repair. A good high quality poncho runs about $50, while the cheap plastic ones can be had for about a buck-and-a-half. Since I don’t wear them often, it’s not worth the $50. And since they don’t last, I have two. I will agree that a poncho is the best bet. There’s enough ventilation so you don’t feel like you’re in a sauna, and they have several other uses as well. Keith

Response:

I’ll argue this point a little. I have a couple of cheap plastic ones, and they work fine. They tend to tear sometimes, but duct tape makes a good repair. A good high quality poncho runs about $50, while the

Actually you can get a good high quality poncho from your local army surplus store. Mine was $5 used. I have had it for 3 years now. They didn’t have any used ones when I bought my daughter’s, so her’s cost me $15, last year. Lynn

Response:

I was wondering if some people could offer some sort of help wrt staying dry on a camping trip where the weather does not co-operate.

I’ll give my answers based on 17 years of frequent camping — mostly with Boy Scout Troops — both in the Southwest (New Mexico, Colorado) and the Upper Mid-West (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana). When taking free advise, remember you get what you pay for: 1. Recommendations for a rainsuit – what types are the best? are stitched and sealed seams necessary or will welded plastic seams do?

After trying rainsuits for several years, I have decided that a GOOD nylon rain poncho is the best solution. Be careful, do not get one of the cheap plastic ones, they do not last. A good nylon poncho will work in almost any outdoor situation except bicycling and motorcycling — and some people may even use them for these activities. Additionally, your poncho will double as a tarp, ground cloth and several other useful items on days without rain. They are less expensive than rain suites also. 2. Footwear – what type of footwear is the best? do people take rubber boots along with them or just a change of footwear?

I usually just bring a change of footwear. I don’t even own rubber boots. 3. Tent – last year our tent leaked somewhat during a moderate to heavy 24 hour rainfall. Are there any suggestions to reduce/eliminate water from entering the tent.

A couple of suggestions: Seam Seal the tent to eliminate leaks around the seam, and use a plastic ground cloth slightly smaller than the tent to prevent seepage from under the floor. Thanks in advance for any input. Scott Webb

Your Welcome Ronald B. Oakes

Response:

I was wondering if some people could offer some sort of help wrt staying dry on a camping trip where the weather does not co-operate. 1. Recommendations for a rainsuit – what types are the best? are stitched and sealed seams necessary or will welded plactic seams do? 2. Footwear – what type of footwear is the best? do people take rubber boots along with them or just a change of footwear? 3. Tent – last year our tent leaked somewhat during a moderate to heavy 24 hour rainfall. Are there any suggestions to reduce/eliminate water from entering the tent. Thanks in advance for any input. Scott Webb

Response:

1. rainsuit 2. Footwear 3. Tent

Decent umbrella. I took one recently on a wet sloppy beginners snow camp trip. I gave the other guys the option (I had a second). I warned them. Now, I have to put up with these guys whining to my other friends how they got wet. While not perfect due to winds, it’s very handy Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene Favorite SNL Character: Candi Slice A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.

Response:

Posted in Outdoor Camping | No Comments » |

Efficiency of dehydrated food

Question:

Hey, where do you find those? Last time I ate a freeze-dried Bl} Band, I had great problems trying to tell which way it was going. It looks the same both ways and tastes like it looks.

I find the taste, look etc. of the Bl} Band freeze dried meals excellent. And it only improves of the addition of chocolate, cheese, sports drink powder, dry bread, dried fruit, musli etc. Or at least I thought so until I ate one of the Bl} Band meals at home. What a disappointment, I guess I wasn’t really hungry… BTW, I find pemmikane the best backcountry food, althoug it is quite labor- some to make: Dry meat or fish. Chop it together with dried fruit, berries etc. Mix it with liquid (warm it) cocoa fat or some other hard fat (kidney fat) and make balls of the mass. Dip the balls in the liquid fat to get an air proof cover. Good energy value. Light weight. Conserves well. Excellent taste. (Was) used by the American Indians. And now that I got on to the subject. Take a few big plastic (PET) coke bottles. Fill them with some liquid fat (vegetable oil), preferably one which does not rise your colesterol levels. And now you have in easy to use, easy to monitor usage, difficult to break, light weight packages optimal energy/weight ratio food, 39kJ/g (9kcal/g). I have yet to test this idea. Obviously one also needs carbohydrates and proteins, not to mention vitamins. The idea is to get the extra energy needed in tough conditions in the form of fat, and I wonder wether a fat rich diet would have any adversary effects. Markus Bjoerksten

Response:

Swedish Blo Bland "hiking meals" available here in Finland…. a meal weighs about 130g, of which you get 500g of DELICIOUS food.

Hey, where do you find those? Last time I ate a freeze-dried Bl} Band, I had great problems trying to tell which way it was going. It looks the same both ways and tastes like it looks. I my experience you can use the freeze-dried stuff to transport the energy, but if you want your food to taste like real food, use some spices. Or your head. I sometimes taken my spice pack along to the cafeteria at the university, with great success. Their food certainly could use some improvement, too. Garlic, different peppers, salt, paprika, ginger, chili, parmesani cheese… Some people carry dried mushrooms, too. I have found that there are backpackers that think that food is a necessary vice that has to be suffered so that they can get as many miles that day as possible. And then there are others that buy the lightest possible fiberglass poles for their tent, so that they can carry one more can of goose liver pate. And then the great majority that falls between the two extermes. — Helsinki University of Technology, Computer Center, Finland

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I show the conversion to be 4.18689 Joules/Cal. Is it common in some places to rate the energy content of food in Joules? Thanks for the conversion factor. Hmm. I just pulled one more book from the shelf, and found the factor — except that it says 4.1840 J/cal. I’ll have to ask the author (my father) about the discrepancy. After all, I wouldn’t want to eat 1 kcal/day too much due to using the wrong conversion! The official SI unit of energy is the joule, which = 1 kg m^2 / s^2. The calorie, although nominally based on metric units, depends on temperature and physical properties ( = the energy required to raise the temperature of 1ml of water by 1K ?). Thus the joule (or KJ) is likely to be more and more the preferred unit. Hmm, I can find at least 4 differently defined "calories", some which are "Calorie", and some "calorie". There’s the International Table calorie (4.1868 cal/J), mean calorie (4.19002), thermochemical calorie (4.1840), the 15 degree C calorie (4.18580), and the 20 degree C calorie (4.18190). Wow, no wonder Joules make more sense! I know that the calorie used for food is NOT the same as the calorie I have used on occasion for engineering calculations, but I am not sure off the top of my head which is which!

I first looked up the Joule<-calorie conversion in my pocket calculator manual. I have since checked: 1. The Handbook of Heat Transfer Fundamentals, 2nd Ed., 1972, Rohsenow, Hartnett & Genic’. Which shows 1 cal. = 4.1868 Joules 2. The CRC Handbook of Chem. & Physics, 71st Ed., 1990. Which shows 1 Joule = 0.238846 cal and 1 Kilocalorie = 4186.8 Joules. More important than the exact value of the 3rd digit is that (and do I feel stupid about this) in the US the energy value of food is listed in Cal. which is "kilogram calories" = 1000 calories = kcal. It never even crossed my mind that I could not survive for 24 hours on just enough heat to warm two 12 oz (335 ml) Diet Cokes from 0 deg. C to 37 deg. C. (body temp). If that were true, you could drink two sodas and go into hypothermia. I shouldn’t feel too bad, I polled several PHD Physicists about this and the only one who understood the difference had been through Weight Watchers. Donald Newcomb

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I show the conversion to be 4.18689 Joules/Cal. Is it common in some places to rate the energy content of food in Joules? Thanks for the conversion factor. Hmm. I just pulled one more book from the shelf, and found the factor — except that it says 4.1840 J/cal. I’ll have to ask the author (my father) about the discrepancy. After all, I wouldn’t want to eat 1 kcal/day too much due to using the wrong conversion! The official SI unit of energy is the joule, which = 1 kg m^2 / s^2. The calorie, although nominally based on metric units, depends on temperature and physical properties ( = the energy required to raise the temperature of 1ml of water by 1K ?). Thus the joule (or KJ) is likely to be more and more the preferred unit.

Hmm, I can find at least 4 differently defined "calories", some which are "Calorie", and some "calorie". There’s the International Table calorie (4.1868 cal/J), mean calorie (4.19002), thermochemical calorie (4.1840), the 15 degree C calorie (4.18580), and the 20 degree C calorie (4.18190). Wow, no wonder Joules make more sense! I know that the calorie used for food is NOT the same as the calorie I have used on occasion for engineering calculations, but I am not sure off the top of my head which is which! Brad Whitehurst | .sig??? We don’t need no steenking .sig!! | | |

Response:

I show the conversion to be 4.18689 Joules/Cal. Is it common in some places to rate the energy content of food in Joules? Thanks for the conversion factor. Hmm. I just pulled one more book

from the shelf, and found the factor — except that it says 4.1840 J/cal. I’ll have to ask the author (my father) about the discrepancy. After all, I wouldn’t want to eat 1 kcal/day too much due to using the wrong conversion! OK, lets get really pedantic: The calorie (more specifically, the number you gave above is for the gram calorie or small calorie, not to be confused with the kilogram calorie, which as you might expect is 1000 time bigger, and really the unit we use for food energy) has had various meanings over years. The U. S. National Bureau of Standards defines the calorie as exactly 4.184000 joules. This is derived from the S. I. standard, not measured, and so is an exact number relative to the joule. The older calorie was a fundamental unit, obtained by actually heating up a bucket of water and measuring the amount of heat it required to raise one gram of water one degree C. This is, of course, an approximation, because of experimental error. There were also different conventions for things like the starting temperature of the water at which the measurement was made. Worse yet, there are two different kinds of Joules So: Cal (gm) (NBS) = 4.184 Joules Cal (gm) (mean) = 4.19002 Joules Cal (gm) (IST) = 4.18675 Joules Ca. (gm) (15deg. C) = 4.18580 Joules Cal (gm) (20 deg. C) = 4.18190 Joules Cal (gm) (NBS) = 4.18331 Joules (INT) Cal (gm) (mean) = 4.18932 Joules (INT) Cal (gm) (IST) = 4.18606 Joules (INT) None of these are the number quoted by Don Newcomb in the first paragraph, above. Interesting! And just to put this all in perspective, it is worth noting that the metabolic energy content of food seems to be a very hard thing to measure, and references may disagree with each other by a lot. For example, I’ve seen numbers ranging from 3000 to 4000 calories per pound for fat. /Dave

Response:

I show the conversion to be 4.18689 Joules/Cal. Is it common in some places to rate the energy content of food in Joules?

Thanks for the conversion factor. Hmm. I just pulled one more book from the shelf, and found the factor — except that it says 4.1840 J/cal. I’ll have to ask the author (my father) about the discrepancy. After all, I wouldn’t want to eat 1 kcal/day too much due to using the wrong conversion! The official SI unit of energy is the joule, which = 1 kg m^2 / s^2. The calorie, although nominally based on metric units, depends on temperature and physical properties ( = the energy required to raise the temperature of 1ml of water by 1K ?). Thus the joule (or KJ) is likely to be more and more the preferred unit. Figures for normal male 70kg.

Remember that these figures will vary a great deal from one individual to another. They represent good starting point, but you must determine what your own body requires. At the extreme, bicyclists in the RAAM (Race Across AMerica) are reported to require about 14 000 cal (59 000 KJ) per day. Since they ride 20-21 hours per day, that fits with the 700 cal (2 900 KJ) per hour for heavy work. This is undoubtedly near the maximum possible. Edward Reid (8-} snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330

Response:

My experience with freeze dried foods in cold climates is that they do not have enough FAT in them. FAT is God’s gift to mankind in cold weather. It is the only way to get enough calories without so much bulk that you feel bloated. Sugar runs a poor second.

Which is why for heavy winter mountaineering you pack margarine or butter to put in everthing including the freeze dried food. — Regards.

Response:

I could give information on daily requirements (which are highly variable, however) — but in Calories, and at the moment I can’t find the conversion factor for KJ.

I show the conversion to be 4.18689 Joules/Cal. Is it common in some places to rate the energy content of food in Joules? Donald Newcomb

Response:

My experience with freeze dried foods in cold climates is that they do not have enough FAT in them. FAT is God’s gift to mankind in cold weather. It is the only way to get enough calories without so much bulk that you feel bloated. Sugar runs a poor second. I have more or less given up on freeze dried, except for a small smattering as quick rations for days when time is of the essence. Otherwise I take complex carbohydrates (couscous, rice, potato powder, rotmo"s, spaghetti, macaroni, beans (esp. red lentils which cook fast), plus FAT, in the form of hard salami, pemmican, sausage, bacon, olive oil. In hot weather, FAT ™ goes rancid too fast. On the other hand, you don’t need as much of it in hot weather.

Response:

Kees Goossens (#18614) called dehydrated food "disgusting". Well, it depends on what stuff you eat – we have some REALLY tasty Swedish Blo Bland "hiking meals" available here in Finland…. a meal weighs about 130g, of which you get 500g of DELICIOUS food. There are several alternatives available. About efficiency of these foods: I have one bag of Blo Bland here and it says that 100g of the stuff has: * 2100 KJ energy * 17 g protein * 24 g fat * 50 g carbohydr. — —– Mikael Niku [a.k.a. Turilas] —– SnailMail: Puodinmaentie 23, 91900 Liminka, FINLAND

Response:

I could give information on daily requirements (which are highly variable, however) — but in Calories, and at the moment I can’t find the conversion factor for KJ.

Sleep 280 kJ/h ( 70 kcal) Marsch (4km/h flat terrain) 1 020 kJ/h ( 240 kcal) Marsch w packing (27kg, 4km/h, easy terrain) 2 280 kJ/h ( 545 kcal) Heavy marsch, heavy work 2 900 kJ/h ( 700 kcal) Light work 10 500 kJ/d (2 500 kcal) Normal military action in field 18 350 kJ/d (4 400 kcal) Stationary survival situtation, day 1 18 765 kJ/d (4 500 kcal) day 2 12 510 kJ/d (3 000 kcal) Non-stationary survival situation in extreme cold 25 000 kJ/d (6 000 kcal) For an efficient burning of body fat an intake of approximately 2000 kJ/d (500kcal) of carbohydrates is needed. Endurance when moving 10km/d, no snow conditions, building of campsites: no food apprx 10d, with 2000kJ/d carbohyd 3 weeks. Need of water: about 2.5l/d, highly dependent on sweating etc. Endurance without water 1..2 days. Figures for normal male 70kg. Source: Swedish Army. Markus Bjoerksten

Response:

recently tried some dehydrated stuff. Well, it was digusting, which is what I expected. Now, my question is how efficient are these packets?

Obviously it all depends on how much water is eliminated. For some foods it can be very difficult to eliminate all the water and still have a semi-palatable food — meat dishes and fruit retain much better texture when freeze-dried than with traditional drying. (From your description, I assume you are talking about freeze-dried.) If you are not absolutely fixed on eating a specific kind of food, there are many common foods which are packaged with virtually no water: pasta, rice, lentils, oatmeal, instant potatoes. Thoroughly dried fruit contains little water. A slow trip through a grocery store will yield many possibilities. It’s mainly a question of personal preferences and finances. I could give information on daily requirements (which are highly variable, however) — but in Calories, and at the moment I can’t find the conversion factor for KJ. Edward Reid (8-} snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330

Response:

I have some Sherpa snowshoes that need to be relaced. I need Sherpa’s phone number (or at the name of the city so I can use Information). By the way, has anyone tried to relace their Sherpas? If you have, I’d like to hear what you used and how well it worked. I’m thinking of trying nylon cord unless I can find a cheap source of neoprene lacing.

Response:

I have some Sherpa snowshoes that need to be relaced. I need Sherpa’s phone number (or at the name of the city so I can use Information). By the way, has anyone tried to relace their Sherpas? If you have, I’d like to hear what you used and how well it worked. I’m thinking of trying nylon cord unless I can find a cheap source of neoprene lacing.

800/621-2277 Sherpa Inc. 810 Wisconsin St. Walworth, WI 53184 At REI and other places, you can buy a kit to relace your sherps. It is relatively easy and straightforward. And cheap. I had to have more done to my sherpas so I had to send them in to get the work done. Not cheap, but they were quick, curteous, and did a good job. Good luck. Jim Klavetter Astronomy UMD College Park, MD 20742

Response:

In contrast with the recent thread on real food in the backcountry, I recently tried some dehydrated stuff. Well, it was digusting, which is what I expected. Now, my question is how efficient are these packets? Measured in weight per energy value (gram/joule)? Remembering it off-hand it had 1800KJ in about 160g. A normal "Bachelors Indian Rice" packet of about 185g provided 1600KJ (again approximnate numbers). This gives a ration of ~11 KJ/g versus ~8 KJ/g. Is this significant on, say, a five day trip? One important aspect is that the dehydrated stuff does not need to be simmered, in contrast with the other packets which need 10 min. (It probably takes less than that as I put the rice in the cold water.) Does anybody have any more information about this (and also about average daily requirement in KJ for example)? Kees — Kees Goossens Keep in Touch with the Dutch: University of Edinburgh, Scotland UUCP: ..!mcsun!ukc!dcs!kgg Wiskunde is bouwen in de geest. — Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer.

Response:

Posted in Campsites | No Comments » |