Walking gear costs.....

214Fells said:

Obviously this isn't typical or the gear manufacturers would be out of
business! Be interested to know what urw's spend on walking gear?

As little as possible. I love bargain bins, me :-)

Chris

Chris Gilbert said:

As little as possible. I love bargain bins, me :-)

A rather self-contradictory answer, I think. It's a standing joke in my
family that everything I buy is a bargain for some or other reason, and
I've spent /thousands/ over the years on those bargains.

Have I spent much less than I would at RRP? Absolutely. Have I spent a
small fortune I could have simply not spent? Um...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

214Fells said:

Obviously this isn't typical or the gear manufacturers would be out of
business! Be interested to know what urw's spend on walking gear?

It can be typical as a modal average as there's lots of people to sell
things to.

But being a terminally sad gear junkie I've spent... lord knows how
much. Thousands and thousands. Most expensive thing will be the storm
tent, at £425 (down from £585 though, so it was a bargain! ;-)). But
then there's the spacious tent and the light tent at ~ £250 each, and so
on (and on, and on, and on).

And then we get to skiing stuff, and kayaking gear, and climbing gear,
etc. etc.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

It's a standing joke in my
family that everything I buy is a bargain for some or other reason

He he, it was a bargain so I bought 8 of them :-)

I used be a habitual gear shopper but I find myself more opportunistic
these days. My parsimonious preferences do not stop me from
investing heavily in essentials and I gladly shelled out full price for
my Meindls and my Paramo stuff.

Chris

214Fells said:

Just mulling over the possible link between cost of the gear purchased
and it's importance.

It varies. With some things spending more makes a big difference. For
example, the money spent on good waterproofs is well worth it when you find
yourself walking all day in the rain, whereas skimping can cause you much
regret and discomfort - although I'm thinking of my earlier walking days
when cheap waterproofs were really [censored].

Same applies to a lot of things, years ago cheap stuff was really nasty, but
nowadays it's a lot better. Still not as good as the best stuff of course,
but I think the gap has shrunk considerably.

Take fleeces for example, when they first came out they were only available
at a high price, but now you can pick up cheap fleeces all over the place.
They may not be as well designed as more expensive models with regard to
zips, pockets and so forth, but you can easily make do with them if you
don't have the budget for the high priced stuff.

A word about clothes in general. Whilst boots and waterproofs are fairly
obvious requirements (no, let's not get into an argument about that), what
about the rest?

Well in my early days I used to wear jeans, t-shirts, wooly jumpers and so
on. The jeans were uncomfortable when wet, the t-shirts got sweaty, the
wooly jumpers didn't keep out the wind, but I lived to tell the tale. Then
a friend of mine started telling me about these new "technical" fabrics,
like fleece and so on, and I dismissed them, regarding them as a waste of
money. However, when I got around to trying them, I soon realised their
benefits, and my walking trips have been a lot more comfortable ever since.
But as I say, fleeces, lightweight fast drying trousers and so on, can be
bought far more cheaply these days, so you don't need to pay high prices.

Rucksack? Well you can spend a lot of money on a good one, but after
looking more closely at some of the best sacks, I realised that many of them
are actually quite heavy, due to their fancy back systems. Whilst these may
be desirable if you are carrying a heavy load, the general advice is not to
carry a heavy load, so then you don't need such a sturdy sack, which in turn
means you can get a lighter cheaper one. So you not only save weight, you
save money.

A few years back I picked up a nice 60L rucksack from Blacks for a mere £35,
in a half price sale. I prefer it to my harder wearing (and now quite old)
Berghaus 70L. I've since bought an ultralite GoLite sack for £130 which is
only 42+8L, which is excellent for the ultralite backpacking I'm now doing,
but I can only get away with using such a small sack by buying other
expensive lightweight low-bulk gear. Should I need to take
more/heavier/bulkier gear anytime, I'll happily use the Blacks rucksack
instead.

Sleeping bags are one item where spending a lot of money makes a big
difference. I used cheap sleeping bags for years, but they were always too
heavy, too bulky, and not very warm. Not that I've finally upgraded to down
I can't believe that I waited so long. Incredibly small and light in
comparison, longer lasting and much warmer. Definitely worth the high
prices they ask for them.

Tent? Back in '86 I bought a Phoenix Phreak (6.5lbs) for a mere £169 (which
I thought was quite pricey at the time) and it lasted me for 17 years.
Started leaking after 15 but I made do for a while longer.

I think it's true to say that in the past I was never a gear freak, I just
bought what I needed at a reasonable price and stuck with it. But I also
travelled heavy for many years, because that's what most cheap equipment
equated to, although again, the gap has lessened over the years.

In recent years I've spent a lot more on equipment, tent, sleeping bag,
sleeping mat & rucksack in particular, and they alone have made a huge
difference in weight/bulk and therefore comfort. But many other items I
tend to skimp on. I used to buy a lot of army surplus stuff, particularly
trousers (which is good if hard wearing is more important that light
weight), but I'm wearing a lot more hi-tech clothing these days (although I
still usually prefer the army trousers for camping trips).

I do find myself wondering if frequenting this newsgroup is partly to blame
for spending so much money on new gear in recent years, but I'm glad I did
though. Never thought I'd find myself buying three (5 actually) tents, one
for £350, one for £240 and one (3 actually) for £5. The interesting thing
is that the £5 tent is as light as my £350 tent and I've actually used it
more often! You definitely shouldn't judge gear on price alone.

Finally, GPS. I bought my first one for £120 6 years ago and got 5 years of
good use out of it. I've since upgraded to an extortionately expensive
model, not because I needed it, but because I wanted to, and I'm very glad I
did because I get so much use out of it and I really do use all the extra
bells and whistles, but for most people, a cheap GPS is perfectly adequate.

To sum up, you don't have to spend a lot of money on gear to enjoy the
outdoors. The law of diminishing returns applies, more expensive gear
doesn't increase the enjoyment by a proportionate amount. Some of my most
enjoyable trips were done in my early days with really [censored] gear (or is that
just nostalgia?).

If we loosely categorise gear into three price categories - cheap, medium
and expensive, I'd say that the only expensive item that's really worth
buying is a sleeping bag, and then only if you do a lot of backpacking.
Other key items like boots, tent and waterproofs are probably best purchased
in the medium category, although you can get away with cheapish lightweight
waterproofs (like Craghoppers Pakka) if you don't spend too much time
walking in the rain.

Most of the rest can be bought cheap, especially if you keep an eye out for
bargains in places like Aldi, Lidl, Macro etc. I picked up a perfectly
decent pair of walking poles from Lidl for just £6.99, and they're certainly
not 10 times worse than my £70 pair.

Paul

Paul Saunders said:

A word about clothes in general. Whilst boots and waterproofs are fairly
obvious requirements (no, let's not get into an argument about that)

Why not? The point of boots and waterproofs is to make sure you
stay attached to the landscape the right way up and stay warm. If
you can do those without them then they're not "requirements".
Plenty of folk are quite happy in Buffalo (or similar) tops and
don't bother much with waterproofs: are they wrong? Lots of people
bother without boots and aren't damamging themselves: are they wrong?

Quoted message said:

Sleeping bags are one item where spending a lot of money makes a big
difference. I used cheap sleeping bags for years, but they were always too
heavy, too bulky, and not very warm. Not that I've finally upgraded to down
I can't believe that I waited so long. Incredibly small and light in
comparison, longer lasting and much warmer. Definitely worth the high
prices they ask for them.

Though of course "walking" does in itself not require a sleeping
bag. Or tent, or stove etc.

Quoted message said:

If we loosely categorise gear into three price categories - cheap, medium
and expensive, I'd say that the only expensive item that's really worth
buying is a sleeping bag, and then only if you do a lot of backpacking.

Depends how you're categorising. £15 is not a huge amount next to
£300, but for a pair of socks it *is* serious money. And serious
money I for one think is more worthwhile spending than a lot of
other stuff. Given a choice for a 40 Km walk between £15 socks of
my choice and a plastic pac-a-mac against a pair of grotty football
socks and a top of the range Goretex jacket, I'd prefer the former
combination as it will improve walking comfort with every step,
while I'm only better off with the second combination if it rains.

Last time I was out on a very wet day was freshers' adat meet with
the Uni club, lending a hand. I was drier than just about everyone
else, through I never put my waterproofs on. My umbrella kept the
rain off far more effectively. My feet were drier than most on the
way home too. Got plenty wet walking through paths that had become
rivers, but in sandals and no socks they dried out in minutes. Not
so for the boot brigade.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

A word about clothes in general. Whilst boots and waterproofs are
fairly obvious requirements (no, let's not get into an argument
about that)

Why not?

Because that's not what this thread is about. It's about importance vs.
cost, not whether something is essential or not. It was just a casual
generalisation and I'm not going to get into a pedantic argument about it.

Quoted message said:

Though of course "walking" does in itself not require a sleeping
bag. Or tent, or stove etc.

So now camping gear is off-topic? A lot of recreational walking is done
with camping gear. I just interpreted the phrase "walking gear" in the
wider sense. Or are we using the strictest interpretation of walking, like
walking to the corner shop? Seems like the OP has gone OTT buying a GPS and
a rucksack for that. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If we loosely categorise gear into three price categories - cheap,
medium and expensive,

Depends how you're categorising.

Relative to the item in question, of course.

Quoted message said:

£15 is not a huge amount next to
£300, but for a pair of socks it *is* serious money.

Obviously. A cheap GPS costs a lot more than an expensive pair of socks.

Quoted message said:

And serious
money I for one think is more worthwhile spending than a lot of
other stuff.

Yes, I forgot about that one. I'd recommend buying expensive socks too,
although I picked up some good ones at a bargain price in Aldi once.

Paul

"214Fells" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Just mulling over the possible link between cost of the gear purchased
and it's importance.

My personal experience is that I've only spent over £50 on two items -
Geko 201 ~ £90 and my walking boots ~ £55. All other items well
below £50, perhaps the third costliest item was my 40l rucksack.

Obviously this isn't typical or the gear manufacturers would be out of
business! Be interested to know what urw's spend on walking gear?

David.

My Field & Trek gold card account says I've spent £1937.21 there since June
2002. Ouch.

Paul Saunders said:

Because that's not what this thread is about. It's about importance vs.
cost, not whether something is essential or not.

Though if you state that something is a "requirement" then you are
putting a huge degree of importance on that, so you will *have* to
bear in mind a cost. So it is what the thread's about, in part.

Quoted message said:

So now camping gear is off-topic?

Not necessarily, but it might be depending on one's particular take
on "walking". It certainly isn't something that 100% of walkers
need to figure costs or importance for. Since I mentioned tents
myself in my first reply on the thread it should hopefully be clear
I'm not getting at you here.

Quoted message said:

Obviously. A cheap GPS costs a lot more than an expensive pair of socks.

But not necessairly much more than a selection of good socks for
different conditions. The contents of my sock drawer comes to well
in excess of the cost of the old eTrexen that are getting sold off
at the moment, for example.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"214Fells" wrote

Quoted message said:

Just mulling over the possible link between cost of the gear purchased
and it's importance.

Quoted message said:

My personal experience is that I've only spent over £50 on two items -
Geko 201 ~ £90 and my walking boots ~ £55. All other items well
below £50, perhaps the third costliest item was my 40l rucksack.

Quoted message said:

Obviously this isn't typical or the gear manufacturers would be out of
business! Be interested to know what urw's spend on walking gear?

Thats not much different to equipment i've purchased although admittedly
over the years I've spent quite a lot. However, I have a cheapish breathable
jacket that would so the job nicely -I forget the price, but it was less
than £90. I'd tend to spend more on boots but not that much more.

Ultimately it depends where you go. I think I could kit myself out for
walking in the Lakes and be safe and comfortable on a budget similar to the
one you're suggesting. The manufacturers would obviously like you to spend
more, but do you actually need that Everest Summit jacket to get to the top
of Skiddaw? ;-)

Graham

Graham Seed said:

The manufacturers would obviously like you to spend
more, but do you actually need that Everest Summit jacket to get to the top
of Skiddaw? ;-)

Not getting up Skiddaw, no, but to walk down Kewsick High Street
it's absolutely /essential/! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Graham Seed said:

The manufacturers would obviously like you to spend
more, but do you actually need that Everest Summit jacket to get to the top
of Skiddaw? ;-)

Not getting up Skiddaw, no, but to walk down Kewsick High Street
it's absolutely /essential/! ;-)

It's only if you are a /serious/ walker. >:-)

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Graham Seed said:

The manufacturers would obviously like you to spend
more, but do you actually need that Everest Summit jacket to get to the
top
of Skiddaw? ;-)

Not getting up Skiddaw, no, but to walk down Kewsick High Street
it's absolutely /essential/! ;-)

It's only if you are a /serious/ walker. >:-)

It's Christmas! It must be time to dig Alan's post out again!

Graham

On 9/12/05 11:15, in article
[email hidden], "214Fells"

Quoted message said:

Obviously this isn't typical or the gear manufacturers would be out of
business! Be interested to know what urw's spend on walking gear?

Far too much!

Have a look at the blog below for some thoughts on lightweight gear and
cost.

--
Andy Howell, Birmingham, UK. To mail simply put back the dots ...

Must Be Over There ...
http://www.ecotrend.org.uk/trek

Peter Clinch said:

But being a terminally sad gear junkie I've spent... lord knows how
much. Thousands and thousands. Most expensive thing will be the storm
tent, at £425 (down from £585 though, so it was a bargain! ;-)). But
then there's the spacious tent and the light tent at ~ £250 each, and so
on (and on, and on, and on).

Currently have four tents - an Akto, the trusty Nallo and two cheap Coleman
tents.

And then there are the rucksacks (search for the perfect pack, etc.) -
Osprey Crescent 70, Osprey Eclipse 35, Macpac Pursuit (original series) 50L,
Berghaus Freelow 20, Osprey Atmos 50, Crux 75.

(If anyone wants to take any of these packs of my hands get in touch!)

--
Andy Howell, Birmingham, UK. To mail simply put back the dots ...

Must Be Over There ...
http://www.ecotrend.org.uk/trek

Andy Howell said:

Have a look at the blog below for some thoughts on lightweight gear
and cost.

A few thoughts on your thoughts.

Golite rucksack. I wouldn't trust the 600g one either, it's the lack of
frame that bothers me. I went for the Infinity at 1070g, still pretty
light, but with a frame (although you can remove the internal back support
if you want). It's a very nice sack, straps are quite thin and there's no
padded waistbelt, but the idea is not to carry a lot of weight. I think
10kg is optimal, 15kg maximum.

I'm usually carrying around 10kg in the sack (cameras on a separate
waistbelt) and it's very comfortable, no problems at all. I've tried
packing 15kg into it just for testing and it wasn't very comfortable, I
could feel a strain on the sack and wouldn't really trust it to carry that
much, although the lightweight materials are stronger than they first
appear - a kind of thin cordura on the base and pockets, while the rest of
the pack is made out of something that feels more like a thin groundsheet
type material, which I'm paranoid might rip if I encountered thorns.

As for the tent, I reckoned the Laserlite was too small, so went for the
Laser, which is only slightly heavier. It's actually got exactly the same
ground area but is more spacious because the ends of the tent are higher,
which is good for not having the roof in your face while you sleep. It's
certainly not a two man tent, but is more spacious than the Argos for
example. I don't think there's much difference in space compared to the
Akto.

You're probably right about the bomb proofing though, the Laser keeps out
the rain okay, but I haven't risked it in very windy weather, and I wouldn't
want to. It's a great fair weather tent but it doesn't feel sturdy enough
to stand up to serious weather (although maybe I'm wrong).

Paul

"214Fells" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this isn't typical or the gear manufacturers would be out of
business! Be interested to know what urw's spend on walking gear?

Well I for one wouldn't spend nearly twice as much on a GPS as I do on a
pair of boots. Mind you I generally wear Scarpas which at full price come in
at around £150 (though it's usually possible to pick up bargains here and
there. Good boots may be expensive but they are worth it and I currently
have 3 pairs on the go, old Scarpa Mantas (a bit like current SLs) for 3
season use, new Scarpa Mantas for winter and Sportiva Trangos for rocky,
bouldery, scrambly days. All significantly over £50.

I don't think it's possible to get a really good jacket for under £50 though
I do have cheap and nasty Pertex jacket and overtrousers if I want to go
really lightweight and the weather isn't going to be too bad (about £35 all
in I think).

Rucsacs - don't get me started. If I open the hall cupboard masses of them
fall out on me.

For years the only item I tended to scrimp on were trousers. I don't know
why but I always seemed to be on the lookout for trousers under £20. Well,
this year after some serious soul searching I bought a pair of Mammut Base
Jump at £100. Gulp. But they are fabulous and I expect them to last some
time.

Roy.

Roy said:

Well I for one wouldn't spend nearly twice as much on a GPS as I do on a
pair of boots.

That would depend what sort of boots and what sort of GPS. A high end
mapping unit could easily come in at double the price of a very
respectable pair of boots, and /if/ you used the full feature set could
reasonably said to be worth it. Though like you, I /personally/
wouldn't prioritise my spending that way.

Quoted message said:

I don't think it's possible to get a really good jacket for under £50though

Depends what you're wanting. A comfortable windproof and breathable
jacket is ideal for most walking, and is easily available for under £50
(one I currently use is an old Rohan one I got for £20 on eBay). If you
want a stormproof one that will keep you comfy in hours of storm while
on the move I'd agree it would probably be worth spending more, but I
wore a Montane Krypton I got from a bargain bin at £40 for most of last
year's Norwegian ski tour and that dealt with snow, sleet, rain, wind
and cold with no real problems (I did use my "proper" waterproof for a
couple of hours but took it off as it was getting too sweaty inside).

My main priority with waterproofs these days is small pack size and low
weight, because they spend the lion's share of their time in the bag.
But again personal preference for how things are used (some people wear
waterproofs all day in any case) means mileage will vary a lot.

Quoted message said:

For years the only item I tended to scrimp on were trousers. I don't know
why but I always seemed to be on the lookout for trousers under £20.

Ronhill Tracksetrs. Outside of winter they're IMHO as good a walking
trouser as you'll find as long as close fitting things don't bother you,
lighter and with better freedom of movement than most other things. For
serious winter I prefer something like Schoeller Dryskin or Powershield
fleece, if it's just cold then fleece tights (again, picked up from sale
for £20).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ronhill Tracksetrs. Outside of winter they're IMHO as good a walking
trouser as you'll find as long as close fitting things don't bother you,

Yes I used to wear them for walking and climbing, but for some reason I tend
to prefer losser fitting these days.

Quoted message said:

For serious winter I prefer something like Schoeller Dryskin

As the Mammuts I now have.

Quoted message said:

if it's just cold then fleece tights (again, picked up from sale

for £20).

Yes, I still have a pair of old Calange fleecy tights which were cheap /
very good.

Roy.