At which point do you sacrifice practical utility for high performance?

P

PayetteRucker

Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
6,234
I've been juggling these two for a while now. More often than not, you sacrifice one for the other. Waffled down may insulate better than other options, but all it takes is a brush up against a pointy rock and your 300 dollar winter coat is ruined, whereas a wool sweater or heavy canvas jacket would laugh it off. A 1.8 pound pack may be easier to carry than a 3.5 pound pack, but is silk thin nylon worth the tradeoff for D1000 cordura? More often than not, high performance comes at a high price, and all too often doesn't last as long as more practical utility options. It seems like a neverending debate when it comes to gear, and I've been wondering lately where I stand as far as this goes-where is the balance?
 
I always tend to go for the "tougher" stuff for bush use. I want my gear to last a long time ,even if it weighs a bit more. I find I get my money's worth that way. Nothing worse than buying some overpriced ,super lightweight,yuppie pos and having it fail.
I don't really make any sacrifices. I buy the best I can afford as far as durability is concerned. The pay-off is that you own it for a long time and it gives good service. This can go for any gear,clothing,packs,and even knives.
I've had lightweight tents rip to shreds,packs split seams,jacket zippers bust,and a bunch of other negatives when I've bought so-called "quality" items.
I have gear from the 60's that's still in use because it was well made. Practical utility is high performance in my book.:thumbup:

:)
 
Last edited:
Unless I was going to undertake some huge trek like the Appalachian Trail I'd always choose heavy duty and put up with the extra weight.
I used to be all high-tec with my outdoor clothing, Gore-tex, Pertex, Polar-Tec etc but now most my stuff is wool !
 
Wool, oilskin canvas, leather... I'm definately finding myself focusing towards less high speed materials for a balance of high performance and practical. It just seems to me like you gotta sacrifice somewhere-either you're packing more weight or you're cutting on durability or 'high performance'.
 
pitdog said:
Unless I was going to undertake some huge trek like the Appalachian Trail I'd always choose heavy duty and put up with the extra
Click to expand...


+1 on that.

Heavy duty is better for the long term -- and I want gear to last, even if it will weigh twice as much, or even more.
 
Found out hard way a $40 surplus pack out lives a $150 lightweight eco friendly pack. How is it eco friendly if it wears out in 6 months and you toss it.
 
I tend to be a generalist in most things... I think 90 percent of the time it pays to be a jack of all trades, but a master of none... for that general utility across a broad spectrum is what I'm looking for...
I' rather have a dependable piece of versatile gear than a chancy specialized piece.. under the circumtances that I most frequenlty face.
 
It depends on your definition of high performance.

I through-hiker sees the lightest weight thing they can find as high performance.
A trailblazer/basecamp hike, more of what I do, probably prefers durability due to the rough usage of his gear. For me, the 1000D Cordura IS the high performance gear.

Now, if you mean when do you go from the Milsurp or Wal*Mart or Mora inexpensive "practical" -- yeah, it'll do -- to the high price, optimized for you type gear, that's easier to answer.

IMO you make that choice when you've gone out and practiced whatever it is you like to do. By the time you're good at your style of outdoors sport, you know enough to say "I like this, and I can make it work, but I'd really love it if it had this. . .

That's when you drop the coin and go for what you call optimum.
 
hiwa said:
I always tend to go for the "tougher" stuff for bush use. I want my gear to last a long time ,even if it weighs a bit more. I find I get my money's worth that way. Nothing worse than buying some overpriced ,super lightweight,yuppie pos and having it fail.
I don't really make any sacrifices. I buy the best I can afford as far as durability is concerned. The pay-off is that you own it for a long time and it gives good service. This can go for any gear,clothing,packs,and even knives.
I've had lightweight tents rip to shreds,packs split seams,jacket zippers bust,and a bunch of other negatives when I've bought so-called "quality" items.
I have gear from the 60's that's still in use because it was well made. Practical utility is high performance in my book.:thumbup:

:)
Click to expand...

I agree; I think of high performance as stuff that does the job well and lasts virtually forever. That means that some of my stuff is traditional: carbon steels, wool, etc. But sometimes the stuff that lasts is bombproof modern stuff like Kifaru packs. That is why I end up with my strange mix of mountain man/military/mountaineering mix of gear.
 
I've seen some high performance materials used in bicycling that allowed for lighter weight but a drastically reduced lifespan of the product. Many people have gone this route and seem to agree to retire parts and even whole bikes after a relatively short lifespan.

I kinda hate this way of thinking because the marketing departments end up hyping the light weight and performance benefits over long-term durability.

I remember building up a mountain bike many years ago and had a really hard time sussing out the durable stuff over the "racing only" stuff that pared down weight a bit too much for my comfort level and weight. I wanted to know if the more expensive stuff would last longer and had few resources to find out the best choices.

This is changing a bit with the crazier niche riders who demand heavier-duty stuff and there seems to be a marketing scheme that now talks about durability. I think that online forums and more firsthand experience sharing helped in this department.

I wonder if camping/backpacking/hiking gear marketing departments will take a step away from the ultralight craze of past years and develop stuff that may weigh a few grams or ounces more but will last and last out in the wilderness when you can't afford stuff to fail.

I remember Backpacker magazine did a small article on tough gear and I was happy that my Arcteryx Bora 80 made the list. It's heavier than most packs, but it is durable as hell and super comfortable to boot. It was worth the extra $$$ I spent for sure.
 
PBWilson, I agree-I think we'll start to see two defined product lines from different manufacturers-light and durable. We're definately seeing it when it comes to footwear... most companies now offer boulder surfing boots or superlight trail racing shoes, and nothing in between.
 
There is often a choice of lighter, more durable, or lighter AND more durable, but you have to find them.

Heavy duty...Carhartt

Medium duty...Columbia snowboarding pants.

Light duty/weight...nylon warmup pants.

You can't find one brand that sells all 3, but all three options are there.

Where the line is depends more on you and your activities than it does on the manufacturer. Obviously, no one is going to wear motorcycle chaps all day just because they will outlast anything else in the thick brush, and no one on a bike will wear lightweight nylon pants just because he could save the few pounds.

Really, the absolute best performance will come from the gear that best suits your particular needs. That also means that the best performance comes, not from miracle materials, but from the best choices in gear.
 
I tend to lean toward the more durable, though I have been considering one of the silnylon ponchos...not so much for the weight difference but the amount of space taken up. So far I'm still not convinced it would be a better all around product than the issue poncho I have, plus the price pushes me away as well.
 
Nothing lasts forever. I've started embracing more and more lighter-weight gear, and have been pleasantly surprised by how some of it is holding up.
Have to be more careful with it, but the main difference is how much more comfortable my gear is, and how much more I enjoy using it. I'll never be an ultra-light gram weenie, but will never go back to my old "durability is everything" philosophy, either. I'd much rather replace a piece of gear now and then than use stuff that ensures that I can be miserable(by comparison) for years to come.
 
Good post. I think it really depends on what you are doing. Like Pitdog and a few others said, I think you buy the gear that is most suited for what you are doing. I seem to be somewhere in the middle of the market, mostly due to the outdoor activities I do. I have never climbed Everest or trailblazed a path through the jungle, nor will I ever get a chance too. But I will go out and enjoy a good week or two camping or 20 or so miles on a decent trail.
I really cant get into most of the traditional gear. I tend to buy the products that have benefited from modern technology.
 
I'm too poor to buy cheap crap. Anything I decide to lay my money down for has to last. I'd hate to have to buy new gear every year to replace what's fallen to bits, or broken.
Of course, I have been known to mutter under my breath about the weight of my pack, hiking up the last hill for the day...
G
 
Hi PR,
my own experience has led me to believe that the only pieces of my gear that need to be highly durable are the bottom and side pockets of my pack (for when bushbashing), my rain jacket (also while bushbashing) and my knife edge (micro bevel, as our hardwoods are tough on edges).

Everything else can be as light as possible.

My silnylon tarp doesn't come in contact with sticks or rocks, nor do my down quilts. Insulative clothing is only worn at rest stops or camp, as I sweat soak anything except a windshirt when walking. So this too can be more fragile.

I like my gear to be durable on the bits that touch rock and scrub, but as light as possible. A light pack improves my performance, so I see this as practical utility.

Again, just what works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top