I seem to be running into somewhat contradictory advice out there in the context of mountaineering: on one hand, it seems to be generally desirable to pick items that are very light, on the other hand, one tends to read about things being "burly" in the reviews as if that were a good thing (where "light" and "burly" presumably don't go well together). Dismissing the possible impact on the wallet just for a second, what does one really want to be "burly" for all-around mountaineering use, perhaps limited to the US, or even lower 48? Why would I ever pick Expedition Crocodile gaiters, for example, where I can pack gaiters half the weight? Where does the "burly" really become worth the weight it adds to the pack? I realize this question isn't very precise, one size doesn't fit all, and there are always individual circumstances to consider, just trying to get the general idea what works for most...

It really depends on how much use you give the gear. Expedition crocs were standard issue when I was working for Outward Bound in CO. I wore them pretty much all day every day. Lightweight stuff tends to wear out quicker. If you need it for success, it can be worth the price. If you are starting out, get the cheaper, a bit heavier stuff and compensate with brute force until you figure out what you need to last, and what you are sick of carrying and barely using.

I don't think burly and fast and light are mutually exclusive. Burly, fast and light and inexpensive, definitely mutually exclusive. Crux makes packs that are very burly and very light. The burliness comes from the general design (few seams = few potential points of failure) and material incorporating Dyneema, a ultra high molecular weight high density polyethylene fiber that is 15 x stronger than steel. A pack made entirely out of the stuff will run you up to $700 and be both incredibly light and tough. I just purchased their Crux AX 50 and it is two pounds lighter than my previous pack (Black Diamond Shadow 45), which was very light at the time I purchased it.

As for gaiters, I've owned a couple pairs of OR Crocs, and crampons shred them just as easily as lighter weight ones. I go with cheap and light nylon gaiters. No need for Gore-Tex.

Tents have also gotten much lighter too, single wall tents using light waterproof breathable fabrics weigh less than three pounds (Black Diamond Firstlight is one of the most popular tents), with floorless shelters being lighter yet. My Black Diamond Betamid, two person shelter is 16 years old, has been used a ton and is still in perfect shape. Weight: 2lbs, 8 oz. Cost: $99.00. Lighter still is the SilNylon verson, 1 lb, 8oz. Hyperlite gear uses laminated Dyneema extensively, and if you don't mind paying $700 for a tarp, it is very light and very tough. Black Diamond's SilNylon version costs only $290, but is not as tough or as light.

A high quality, boutique brand down sleeping bag with 850+ fill will be much lighter, and much more expensive than big box brands. Western Mountaineering and Feathered Friends make the best. They also last forever if properly cared for. For a general use, three season mountaineering bag, expect to pay $400 or more.

For almost every category of gear, being lightweight is more important than being tough -as long as the gear is strong enough to do its basic job.

You wouldn't use a shoelace as a climbing harness, and you wouldn't use a plastic shopping bag in lieu of a backpack - those are examples of being too weak to do the basic job.

The times you need extra strength are when a piece of gear is subjected to frequent stress and strain. Aside from the obvious technical gear where handling high forces *is* the basic job, the following gear takes a beating just about every time I use it:

-footwear
-gloves
-hiking poles

In fact I've almost given up on hiking poles. Outside of winter I carry a walking stick or nothing.

Then there's gear that may take extra abuse depending how you use it:
- a haul bag (if the rock is rough and/or the route doesn't allow for "clean" hauls)
-bottom of a backpack (if the route requires a lot of half-scrambling on descent)
(damage is usually slow enough that you can repair as you go)
-outer clothing layer, maybe sides of backpack (on tough bushwhacks)

And finally, there's shelter. The "basic job" usually doesn't include high wind or heavy snow or very cold winter nights. Worth spending money/weight here if you're going into those conditions.

PS for gaiters, I like my elasticized ankle gaiters. No gaiter is puncture-proof. Keeping your pants wrapped tight and out of the way is a better strategy, and these do that while keeping snow out of the tops of my boots.

(I do use a pair of full-size gaiters from time to time, as the short elastic ones aren't terribly water-resistant and less robust to certain problems, e.g. pants get pulled out of them during a glissade.)

Ever since I broke my back I've become a light weightaholic. And boy am I happy about this transition! Aluminum pons, mini ice axe, small sleeping bag, cut my sleeping pad in half so that it can weight 4oz's (I made sure it has a decent R rating and use a pack for the rest of my body), don't use nalgines, carry less food, smaller camera toys, light puffy with light jacket as only layers and many more lighter items. The trade offs? Not much. My ice axe doesn't quite perform as well on bullet ice, however I'm sure if I had the nano tech version it would more than make up for this. The less food not only is less weight to carry, but burns more calories per trip. The layer part of course depends on the time of year, during summer I can go really light without suffering in case of a storm.

The only exception I can think of to the light weight game is ice tools where you want the hammer heads to plant in well. I admit though I haven't used really light weight ones, so maybe they can perform alright? Also you want to be careful on the rope department and make sure that it can handle lead falls well. But as for everything else, go light!

I was climbing with lightweight fanatic Colin Haley and we sat down to have a drink. He looks over at me and says "EB, your water bottle has a sticker on it". "Yeah, I got when I bought some gear and so I put it on the bottle". "But EB", Colin responded, "stickers weigh."

I've been climbing with a couple of young guys, both single, working for Microsoft with lots of disposable income. They spend enormous amounts of time and money to buy the latest, lightest gear. One remarked "We spend all this time and money finding the lightest possible gear while you just don't bring it."

Three friends of mine made an enchainment in the Pickets, perhaps the most rugged and inaccessible alpine range in the contiguous 48. Equipment failure here could be disastrous so they used some very innovative techniques to reduce weight which cost no additional money. Here is a link to their trip report, which includes equipment and techniques used to save weight: http://mountainwerks.org/cma/2004/pickets.html

Thanks very much to all of you! A lot of great info in this thread.

ExcitableBoy wrote:I've been climbing with a couple of young guys, both single, working for Microsoft with lots of disposable income. They spend enormous amounts of time and money to buy the latest, lightest gear. One remarked "We spend all this time and money finding the lightest possible gear while you just don't bring it."

Three friends of mine made an enchainment in the Pickets, perhaps the most rugged and inaccessible alpine range in the contiguous 48. Equipment failure here could be disastrous so they used some very innovative techniques to reduce weight which cost no additional money. Here is a link to their trip report, which includes equipment and techniques used to save weight: http://mountainwerks.org/cma/2004/pickets.html

That is a sweet trip report. Mad respect. I totally get the gear list recorded for posterity and future reference. I've looked back at lists I made early, and that's how my new list got so short. I've had it go the other way, too. I descended Teewinot, after climbing a very scary north face route, with one head lamp for two of us, because I was sick of carrying it and never using it. Now I just have a much lighter headlamp, or an even lighter clip light that I carry everywhere. Shitty, shitty night.

b. wrote:

ExcitableBoy wrote:I've been climbing with a couple of young guys, both single, working for Microsoft with lots of disposable income. They spend enormous amounts of time and money to buy the latest, lightest gear. One remarked "We spend all this time and money finding the lightest possible gear while you just don't bring it."

Three friends of mine made an enchainment in the Pickets, perhaps the most rugged and inaccessible alpine range in the contiguous 48. Equipment failure here could be disastrous so they used some very innovative techniques to reduce weight which cost no additional money. Here is a link to their trip report, which includes equipment and techniques used to save weight: http://mountainwerks.org/cma/2004/pickets.html

That is a sweet trip report. Mad respect. I totally get the gear list recorded for posterity and future reference. I've looked back at lists I made early, and that's how my new list got so short. I've had it go the other way, too. I descended Teewinot, after climbing a very scary north face route, with one head lamp for two of us, because I was sick of carrying it and never using it. Now I just have a much lighter headlamp, or an even lighter clip light that I carry everywhere. Shitty, shitty night.

I agree EB, I just did a major Pickets traverse last month and discounting my food, my pack was 20 pounds. That included a rack of cams, rope, microspikes, harness, cookware, sleeping bag/pad and tent. I didn't spend much to get some serious gear upgrades right before this trip. See the TR here if interested:
http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8021967&highlight=picket