[at-l] "That crazy Coup..."

[rcli4 at comcast.net]

35 years ago I hiked about 80 miles in 4 days with a 160 pounds on my back in 100 degree heat.  You would be surprised what you can do when you put your mind to it.

Clyde

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Sloetoe <sloetoe at yahoo.com> 

> --- In IndianaATClub at yahoogroups.com, V Hurst 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Have you seen this news re GoLite's Demitri 
> Coupounas?! 
> > 
> > 
> http://outside-blog.away.com/blog/2008/03/the-at-golites.html 
> 
> ### Something obnoxiously put spaces after the periods 
> in the url, but as I recall it, "Coup" is going for 
> the non-reprovision distance record, of 620 miles in 
> 40 days, with a 127lb pack at the start, of which 
> ~15.5 is base weight. This works out to 2.775 pounds 
> of food per average 15.5 miles per day. 
> 
> ### I find this nutsy, for a few reasons. 
> 
> -- 15.5 pound base weight? That should be an 
> embarrassment for anyone from a firm called "Go Lite". 
> I think my winter base weight is ~18 pounds, good down 
> to 0*F. Sheesh. 
> 
> -- 127 pounds... for 40 days? He must pack like Sly. 
> (I picked up Sly's pack at the end of the Wind River 
> Range, to put it in the back of a pick-up. Poor guy! 
> At the END of a week+ of hiking, his pack was heavier 
> than mine was AT THE START, when I was carrying food 
> for myself AND the boys. Sly just smiled and limped 
> toward the truck.) 127-16 = 111 pounds for food, over 
> 2.75 pounds/day. Nuts. He's either carrying fresh 
> fruit (etc), or has a terrific tape worm, or is 
> carrying food for ~67 days and just wants to bait the 
> hiking market. (My guess is the latter, and more power 
> to him.) 
> 
> -- 620 miles? Nuts again. Or is it? At a reasonable 
> 1.5 pounds per 10mile-day, that'd be 62 days and 93 
> pounds of food. With a heavier load, it'd be easy to 
> factor in a "load relief" margin of (111-93) 18 
> pounds, or 20% on top of the 93 pounds, as the early 
> miles will "come hard" calorie-wise. The thing is, 
> we're still talking only 10 miles per day which, 
> surviving the first 40 pounds of food, as entirely 
> doable. 
> 
> -- The anticipated 15.5 miles per day sounds pretty 
> low, until you remember the starting weight. If he 
> averages 7.5 miles per day for the first third (I 
> mean, how far could *you* get with a 100+ pound 
> load?), and 15+ per day for the middle third, and 22.5 
> for the last third, the a trip-wise 15.5 miles per day 
> average comes right into view. Remember, this is the 
> *average* -- should he take a half-day or something 
> somewhere, that's got to be made up with extra miles 
> on "the other side"... 
> 
> You can see that the penalty for extra weight is 
> *more* weight, more time, and less miles. 
> 
> When the boys and I were hiking the Long Trail (2001), 
> I split the food into 90 mile/10 day shots. The pack 
> weighed 50-55 pounds with water, with a base weight of 
> ~18 pounds (a 4.5 pound pack and 1 liter of water). 
> That's ~35 pounds of food, of which I ate about half, 
> or 1.75 pounds per day. At the time, I estimated I was 
> carrying 21 days of solo food load. When the boys and 
> I were hiking Monson->Katahdin (2004), I left Monson 
> with a pack weight of ~47 pounds, with a base weight 
> of ~13 pounds (2 pound pack, 1 pound bag), so ~34 
> pounds of food. The boys were carrying some food too 
> at the start, but we arrived at Katahdin Stream with a 
> day's ration left, 7 or 8 days later. (~15 miles per 
> day?). It works out again to ~1.75 pounds per day, but 
> this time "times three" (5.25 pounds per day total), 
> AND with higher mileage days. 
> 
> I think this "single shot" record is ripe to fall. 
> 1.75 pounds per day for 40 days is only 70 pounds of 
> food, not 111 pounds. And that's doing 15 mile 
> Appalachian Trail days. So *theoretically*, he should 
> be able to do this with a sub100 pound load. Even 
> attaching a weight "load relief" penalty of extra food 
> for early miles, it's still doable. And even cutting 
> the average to 12 miles per day (20% decrease), the 
> 111 pounds of food would still be good for 63.5 days, 
> and 761 miles. That seems a better guess all the way 
> around. 
> 
> On the other hand, could you imagine simply GETTING 
> INTO a hunnert pound pack? 
> 
> squatstoe 
> 
> Spatior! Nitor! Nitor! Tempero! 
> Pro Pondera Et Meliora. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> at-l mailing list 
> at-l at backcountry.net 
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20080324/170f4408/attachment.html