|
|
Post by Eric E on Nov 23, 2017 5:36:52 GMT -5
Un-supported = no re-supply at all, yeah? Tough one to confirm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raphael on Dec 13, 2017 23:04:42 GMT -5
Un-supported = no re-supply at all, yeah? Tough one to confirm. It generally means no prepared support. For example on the Appalachian Trail, if you were to do an unsupported FKT attempt it still means you can dip into towns to resupply, but not have people waiting trailside with food already prepared etc. It becomes next to impossible to do an FKT attempt while carrying a months worth of food all at once lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bakwin on Dec 14, 2017 9:46:24 GMT -5
Un-supported = no re-supply at all, yeah? Tough one to confirm. It generally means no prepared support. For example on the Appalachian Trail, if you were to do an unsupported FKT attempt it still means you can dip into towns to resupply, but not have people waiting trailside with food already prepared etc. It becomes next to impossible to do an FKT attempt while carrying a months worth of food all at once lol. No, what Raphael describes we term “self-supported” to distinguish it from unsupported. Unsupported means carrying everything from the start (all food & fuel), except water from natural sources. I suppose picking berries is ok too. Indeed, unsupported is impractical on a very long route like say the AT. I know of unsupported trips of up to about 10 days, so the Bruce Trail is probably at the edge of practicality. |
|
|
|
Post by Eric E on Dec 14, 2017 21:04:14 GMT -5
Thanks Peter, that is how I understood what an un-supported hike entails. Thanks for the input here, everyone. As things stand, right now, I'm more concerned with prep. for my thru hike next summer. I do plan to leverage the summer of conditioning towards a trip up the Bruce, (something that's on my list), regardless. Is an un-sup. hike possible? Yes. Do I want to do it? We'll see...
|
|
erice
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by erice on Dec 14, 2017 21:56:11 GMT -5
I'm going to move this idea to a new thread, as well. Thanks again.
|
|
erice
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by erice on Dec 14, 2017 21:56:59 GMT -5
Thanks Peter, that is how I understood what an un-supported hike entails. Thanks for the input here, everyone. As things stand, right now, I'm more concerned with prep. for my thru hike next summer. I do plan to leverage the summer of conditioning towards a trip up the Bruce Trail, (something that's on my list), regardless. Is an un-sup. hike possible? Yes. Do I want to do it? We'll see...
|
|
erice
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by erice on Dec 17, 2017 0:22:32 GMT -5
I just had a look at that thread, and I think you could break all the records  But seriously, I do. A thru-hike gets you into amazing shape like nothing else, which is why thru-hikers have a long history of beating supported records set by professional runners. Take the Appalachian Trail example. A famous sponsored lady runner set the supported AT record of 46 days a few years back, then the most famous ultra runner in the world, Scott Jurek, beat that by 3 hours on another high budget supported run, and then the next year, another red bull sponsored runner (Karl Meltzer) took that down a couple more hours last year. Now this year, a regular thru-hiker comes along and beats all those professional runners by a relatively large 10 hours, despite carrying a pack and having to go off-trail resupply: www.washingtonpost.com/sports/with-a-25-pound-pack-joe-mcconaughy-breaks-appalachian-trail-speed-record/2017/09/03/8e0e0df0-90c3-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?utm_term=.8a1a28f9663cThe same thing has happened on the PCT, the JMT and many other trails. What you need for these speed records are muscles, tendons and joints that are in such good shape from huge miles that they never quit. That's what a thru-hike does better than shorter runs. So if I were you, I'd aim at the supported record, and even if you come up short, you'll set a really nice unsupported record. I don't want to talk too big of a game without backing it up, but hiking 891km of relatively good trail in less than 9 days, 21 hours shouldn't be that hard. From what I've read, most of the Bruce is pretty good walking, so holding 5km/hr shouldn't be that hard. Do that for 18 hours a day and you've got 90km. Sleep 6 hours then repeat each day, to break the record by a few hours. If you run some of the easiest bits, sleep less, or hike through the night on the last night, then you would smoke the record. For perspective, Andrew Bentz got off the PCT in 2014 and then set the record on the John Muir Trail by hiking 60 miles per day on much tougher terrain than the Bruce. So I'd say go out and hike a normal PCT hike of 20-30 miles per day, but toss in a few 40 mile days and one 50 mile day to get a feel for it. Then fly home, rest for a few days and go rock the Bruce ^_^ in 9 days. After hiking the PCT, doing it in 18 days (30 miles/day) won't even feel fast. |
|
erice
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by erice on Dec 17, 2017 0:37:43 GMT -5
Just some thoughts here from my friend Dan D. (Stein Valley traverse thread) I don't see anything wrong with what's been said, above. Anyone else have input?
|
|
erice
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by erice on Feb 1, 2018 22:48:15 GMT -5
In the absence of a reply here, I'll leave this thread alone, until I get back home in early fall and decide if I want to do an un-sup/fkt hike or not. Might as well have a go at both records... Have a great 2018 on trail!
|
|
