UKH

I am working my way through my kit list for Aconcagua with the view that all of these items I will use again on other expeditions.

On the one hand, I'm concerned about weight and trying to keep it down as low as possible so I don't wear myself out on the trip. On the other hand, I don't want to get something which is unable to carry all of the recommended kit. I am thinking either 85L or 100L - I guess the difference in weight of the pack itself between 85 and 100 would be negligible and it may be for the best to go with 100l just to be safe and I don't have to ram everything in to bursting?

Thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. I am happy to pay what is necessary although as always anything gratuitously high price wise is something I'm keen to avoid. 

Also, what essential features am I looking for and what are "nice to haves" that can make a decent difference. Finally, will all of these type backs be top loading or is a different style recommended? 

Have had a look at the Fjallraven kajka 100 and that seems pretty decent if anyone has used that...

One thing to bear in mind is that it is not the difference in weight of the pack that is important (as you say it won't be too much).  It is the weight of the extra 15 litres of stuff you will inevitably pack in (just in case).  It is always best on big trips to have a pack that is just the right size (although that is clearly easier said than done).

If you have a good local shop go in and talk to them as they should have shop staff who will be experienced in advising on what you need or talk to https://ultralightoutdoorgear.co.uk/. 

Andy Kirkpatrick does a good article on expedition backpacks. Probably worth a read

Designed for older Nordic folk who think you can't go backpacking in Lapland without a cast iron skillet and at the very least a hand axe. Are you taking those up Aconcagua?

I'd say that's totally the wrong type of pack for what you're doing. If you really need a big pack, get one as simple as possible - and stripped down for climbing. Look at the mountaineering heritage brands first. Berghaus expeditions were the classic big climbing packs for ages, but I'm not sure if they still make them. Osprey is another possibility.

In general fjallravren kit is more designed for the thousand yard stare with a fjord in the background on Instagram rather than anything practical.

Thanks guys, another one that seems to crop up on a lot of reviews / online recommendations is this one 

https://eu.gregorypacks.com/uk-en/baltoro-100-pro-l--alaska-blue/142436-100...

And Osprey is mentioned quite a bit too. 

I'm really not just having a pop, but you do still seem to be going about this in a very arse about face way.  Two months ago you asked how to climb Everest and plenty of people gave you sensible suggestions for UK and European adventures to get you into mountaineering, yet now, 2 months later, you're booked on a trip up a 6,900m mountain while apparently still having never carried a rucksack of camping kit up a hill in inclement weather.

If you'd spent the intervening 2 months going wild camping up a hill every weekend you'd have a very good idea by now of what sort of boots, bags, jackets etc you like and need.  Even more so if you'd invested a modest amount of money in taking a guide / instructor out on a few of the trips.

I feel like you're setting yourself up for failure.

Anyway, if this is your chosen approach then the company you're booked on with of Aconcagua can probably provide a kit list with specific recommendations for each item if you ask.

Yes, you are having a pop. And a totally unnecessary one. You also haven't contributed at all to the thread I started and your only intention was to embarrass me.

I've booked an Aconcagua expedition (on the recommendation of at least one very experienced mountaineer) and paid for the flights. That fact isn't changing. Can I ask what your credentials are for giving me this churlish dressing down? 

You have absolutely no idea what I have been doing with my time over the last 2 months, nor is it any of your business - so tell me how "wild camping up a hill" is going to instinctively inform me what expedition bag I'm going to need for a 3 week expedition? And is  it going to inform me on the specifics of several different types of goretex jackets and all sorts of other kit that I will need in conditions not remotely resembling wild camping up a hill? I'll just instinctively have a "sense"? I don't think that is very sensible.

For me, it is better to ask for input from people more experienced than I on kit for conditions I have absolutely no chance of replicating in the UK and based on making absolutely no assumptions. Yes, I can ask the kit guys with the provider I am going with, but I thought coming here would mean I am afforded a bit more insight so I can be 100% spot on with my choices.

I can't believe I just spent the last 10 minutes replying to your post but I'll ask you to do everyone a favour and refrain from engaging further - I'm sure it will just end up winding you up anyway so probably for the best for all parties. Especially if you have no intention of speaking on the subject of the post itself.

If go for something like this https://www.aiguillealpine.co.uk/product/rucksacks-bags/climbing-alpineruck...

I'm always happy to big up Aiguille gear - made in the lakes. If you're on a guided trip this should be the absolute max. 

Remember the big four weight contributors, tent, mat, sleeping bag aaaand the rucksack! The one above is 1.2kg.

The fjallravren is a massive 3.6kg.

Good luck with your trip.

I would be tempted to get the weights of the kit you plan to carry, fill water containers to that weight into a pack you own and go for a long walk up some steep hills. Let us know how you get on.

Doesn't account for altitude, wind buffeting or the sheer unwieldiness of a big pack but will let you know how your fitness and strength can cope with the weight.

For me if it didn't fit into 65L then there was no way I would be hiking uphill with it.

Cheers Paul, the more I scan through different forums on this, the more I think 100l would defo be excessive. Especially as the tents and camp equipment would be carried by the porters.

A Sherpa. Pay a local to carry the bag. They earn a good income, you get to stroll along and enjoy the walk in.

Failing that, if you take an 85l bag, you'll fill it. If you take a 100l bag, you'll fill it.

Work out what you need and then see what it fits into. Borrow a bag and use that as a guide. I can get a tent, sleeping bag, air mat, stove and food into a 30l bag. But my needs in the UK may not match your needs. If you have to take 2 sleeping bags, 2 weeks food and fuel etc, that may be a key factor. If its just lots of clothing, then that's a different story.

Regardless, I'd suggest something with a good belt, as you'd want the weight on your hips not shoulders.

Yes they have, they made a very valid point that you could have gone a long way to answer your own question. I can't help but think that you're oversensitive to criticism and answers that you'd rather not hear. You are getting a lot of very good advice on here. Even if you don't like the tone, some consideration of it might be helpful.

Re rucksacks, unless you are a huge and very strong individual I cannot imagine why you'd want to carry a 100l pack. I'm not qualified to advise on high-altitude mountaineering but for the most part I'd have thought much of the stuff you are using will be carried for you. 

FWIW I used to backpack with a 90l pack with tent, stove, fuel and food for a week, paperback book, 5kg of photography gear, 2 litres of water etc and it was often just hard, unenjoyable work. A couple of thousand vertical metres ascent and descent each day with that kind of load didn't do my knees any favours. With modern gear you can cut way down on weight and bulk. Blue Ice and Aiguille Alpine do lightweight big packs, should you need one. I have a Blue Ice Dragonfly 45, it's simple and weighs zilch, is very comfortable and was designed specifically for your kind of thing. I can live out of it, big camera included.

Tell me how could I already have gone a long way to answering my own question on what is the best volume backpack suitable for a 3 week mountaineering expedition? By trying on a different size every week on a weekend camping trip? Leave the tags on and bring them back to the shop after? Or maybe do a few trial runs up Aconcagua?

At risk of invoking your wroth,  I think what people are getting at by actual having a go at local multi day trips you may get an idea of what you need/works for you/you can carry rather than rely on randoms on the Internet to guess what may or may not work for you. 

When I used to do expidations I could get away with around 45-50l. However this was only after a lot of experience of what I needed and what I could cut out (and by spending tonnes on lightweight kit). Almost everyone tries to carry to much the first time, but the only way to work out what works for you is trial and error.

That or just pay a guide and ask them.

Noone's incurring any wrath, but if you want to criticise my approach, expect me to respond. Yup, I get the thrust of the argument, but in addition to the manner of it clearly being just plain rude, it just makes little practical sense in the context of what I'm asking and, as this thread has demonstrated (thanks to the useful posters not trying to prove any points), there is always a lot to be gleaned by inviting general comment. If every poster had shut me down in the same way, I would not have learned a thing. Thanks for your input though. Current plan is to ditch any idea of getting a 100l bag and erring on the side of caution in getting a 85l bag. Probably the Gregory Baltoro or the Osprey Aethna based on reviews. No doubt lessons will be learned over the course of the 2.5 week expedition that will be valuable for future expeditions - but input here has been helpful in eliminating certain options. I also have to be mindful that different guide organisers recommend minimums of 70ls in some cases and 80ls in others for such expeditions where you are carrying all your own kit. As you can imagine, there's no way I'd risk cutting it as fine as you would be able to on my first expedition.

I've read through your posts. You seems to have gone from conquering all the mountains in Shropshire, to the Y3P in a remarkable time. However, I would hazard a guess that your ~7000 meter hill, is an organised expedition?

If you have a kit list, that might help people identify your needs. As I mentioned, taking clothes is a different story from a self supported trip.

So...

Are you, personally, going to be carrying a tent, ropes, axes, climbing gear, and high altitude boots etc. Plus 3 weeks of provisions on a long walk in? Or is it a supported, camp to camp trek for some part. With the requirement to carry just personal kit?

Sounds like you have a awesome trip lined up!

I think most people have maid the main point that 100L would be a lot to carry, i have a 65L lowe alpine pack that i really rate, is plenty big enough for 2 week long trips including tent sleeping bag etc. 

I'd say make a kit list of what you absolutely must have and a list of stuff you would like to have but could ditch if needed. Figure out the size from there. You want to be really weight conscious its surprisingly easy to end up with a bag weighing 25Kg+ and that is a brutal weight to carry. 

Regarding the getting out in the UK hills comments form people, Yes the UK hills are not Aconcagua but they do deliver a lot of valuable experience. People are just trying to advise on the best way for you to equip yourself in terms of experience.

It should be clear that that wild camping in the UK does tick a lot of the same skills you will find very useful on your trip. for example: how to set up a tent in wind, how to avoid condensation, how to break down your camp and re-pack, how to maximize comfort with minimal gear etc.

maybe you've done stuff in the UK already. But if not then its worth trying to factor it in before you go, if nothing else it will be a great way to test out your new rucksack and get it adjusted to you. 

Classic...

To add to my original comments.  I have mostly used my big pack (I think it is 75 expandable to 95) when doing long solo trips.  I think the only time I used this big pack on a guided expedition was in Mongolia as we camped on a glacier and all had to share loads.  Otherwise I have used my 40-50 litre pack as a large day pack as others have done the heavy lifting.  But I don't know what Aconcagua is like for support.

You can also attach quite a lot to the outside of a pack so worth thinking about something smaller but with good ways to attach things to the outside, e.g. your foam sleeping mat (whatever you do don't get an inflatable sleeping mat).

Looks like are a great trip. Having never been - but watched a few vids recently, the pack size folks were using didn't look anywhere in the region of 80-100L.

So without knowing what you will be asked to carry vs what the porters will carry for you as a team (tents/food), its hard to nail down, but I would opt for a pack not too big that becomes unwieldy especially given the altitude, and one that has good options for compressing down should you not need all the space.

Where are you based? if you don't mind me asking.  Maybe some folks might be able to help with packs to check out?   I've a 60+10L you could have tried which has a great frame, but I'm ooop north.

By modern standards 85 ltrs is still flipping massive. Why is it that you think you need that much volume? If it's because you've got to get everything in it on the plane out there, fair enough - but a big 100 ltr duffle bag is the usual solution to that. But do you think you will be needing to carry huge amounts of stuff up to the lower reaches of the mountain? As opposed to using mules or trucks? What's the deal on Aconcagua? 

When I was young and probably had a much higher pain tolerance, I did 6 weeks in Greenland with a 75 ltr pack. It was often full and the fitter lads in the group, I wasn't particularly big but was hill-fit, often carried 25 kgs loads. I most remember that it was really tough going. If you need to lug that sort of weight up a big mountain at altitude I suspect that it is going to be unbelievably hard work. But will you be doing load carries up the mountain?

Would something about this size work? 😉

I was intrigued enough by the idea of mountaineering with a 100 litre pack to search “Aconcagua kit list”. The first couple of results did indeed recommend 100l or even bigger. They also specified a 70cm ice axe and silk socks. I think these lists were American, and possibly compiled many years ago.

A more useful list is supplied by Jagged Globe, for instance. They say 70-75 litres.

I haven't climbed Aconcagua but there are a lot of experienced people here. I think it would be useful for you to clarify:

1. is this guided or unguided (I think guided given that you refer to a kit list?)
2. if guided, what are you expected to carry? Just your own clothes and gear? Any technical equipment/ropes? (Maybe not if regular route.) Sleeping bag/mat? Tent? Food? Gas/stove?
3. what route are you doing?
4. crucially, if guided, what backpack(s) or size(s) does the guide company recommend?

You also need to make absolutely sure that whatever pack you get fits you well, which is a very individual thing. The outdoor shops in London are not very good anymore and I'd say it would be worth a trip to North Wales (Joe Brown/Climbers Shop, V12 in Llanberis) or Hathersage (Outside) or the Lakes (Joe Brown again, Needlesports) to sort out big pack, boots, crampons, ice axe, and more expensive clothing items in particular, to ensure you're getting the right stuff.

Previous posts have already alluded to the risk of over-packing with a bigger bag. That is a real thing, but in my experience there is also the opposite issue - it's harder to pack bigger bags properly if they're not going to be mostly full. Even faffing with compression straps, the weight can end up in the bottom half of the pack which makes them unwieldy and cumbersome to carry. This takes more of your energy and, maybe more importantly, affects balance. So there is a cost to getting a bigger bag that you're not going to fill.

Ultimately, it absolutely depends on what you're expected to carry and on what packs fit you well.

I think I was shooting for a bit bigger as on the Vacas valley route you are required to carry a bit more. I am thinking in my head that 10l capacity over is a bit to play with if absolutely needed? I can always choose not to fill the space (although the point is acknowledged that I will just fill it if it's there). I'm going to post the full kit list later as there is a SHED load of stuff they want you to bring and they want you to carry more or less all of it on the carrry days. I dread to think how much this will cost me 😭

Thanks v much, will post it in a bit. It's guided. I'm off to North Wales (camping and on long hikes would you believe!) next weekend as it happens so looking forward to checking out those stores. 

This is most of it. I'd also be bringing toiletries, phone charger and a 20,000 mah power bank plus charger, earphones and maybe a book. You do have to share some of the group load at some point as well which is why they want you to have a bit of room for that. It may be the decision between 70, 75, 80 or 85 will be to see if all of this fits in the smaller bag and go from there?

Sleeping gear
-20C sleeping bag

Foam mat
Inflatable mat

Bags
Duffel bags: 130l x 2 (something to do with mules taking the high altitude gear on up and the rest in a separate bag)
25-30L backpack
70-100l Rucksack 
 

Underwear - 7-8 pairs of underwear and a dozen pairs of socks? Only the socks were on the list.

Gloves:
Liner Gloves
Fleece gloves
Expedition gloves
Expedition mittens (worn with liners)

Accessories
Towel
A plate, cup and cutlery
Nalgene bottle
Thermus
Pee bottle
Balaclava covering nose and mouth
Adjustable trekking poles
Sun tan lotion 
Crampons
Ice axe
Climbing helmet
Baseball hat
Head lamp – 300 lumens or more
Wool hat
Glacier Glasses  
Goggles 
 

Bottoms:
Base layer bottoms 

Soft shell pants (Rab summit?)
Insulated pants (Rab argon?)

Hard shell pants
 

Shoes:

Crocs 

Hiking boots
Trail shoes – although I have a pair of Nike air max 90G that I hiking in Britain when it's dry as they have good traction on bottom 
Double boots 

Top: 

half dozen t shirts, mid layer x 2, soft shell jacket, hard shell jacket, insulated light jacket, Down jacket (800 units or whatever it is)

I wanted to go with jagged globe but couldn't get the dates to work...

You might want to compare that list with this one:

http://aconcagua-preparation.eu/aconcagua-gear-list/

There’s way less on it - no crocs or trail shoes, no hard shell Goretex, way fewer t-shirts and socks, etc.

Edit: this is maybe also useful for you:

http://aconcagua-preparation.eu/

Don't take a book, take a cheap old kindle (you can get them for £20-30 on ebay), lighter and more flexible.

Just looked at the Jagged Globe kit list for Aconcagua and they do recommend a 70l pack.  So probably 70-85l would be about right.  I'd go light, it'll be your first time at altitude and the going will be tough.

The Aiguille Alpine packs suggested are very good.  Lightweight but hard wearing.  Also supporting a British company.

If it was me, I'd have one of these - https://www.builttosend.com/product-page/x3-alpine-white and a load of PHD jackets to keep the weight down.

The advice people are giving about getting out there with a massive pack is good, it'll make you not want to do it again.  So try and take it in the spirit it's intended. 

I hope you enjoy the exped.  I'm sure you'll learn a lot.  I hope to see a full trip report on here!

You put all of that quite diplomatically, and your warning of failure (for that sort of trip) could well have been lifesaving. After all, it's not just the life of OP that's at risk on such trips.

Just base your pack on what you've used when camping in the uk, with obvious adjustments for temperature and duration.

PS kind of surprised that your list doesn´t include a first aid kit; it´s a must.

Two comments.

Try doing the Y3Ps with a fully loaded 100l pack and let us know how you get on.

And

Our 1st trip off up to the Couvercle, Dennis Gray stops us on the road, 'Ey up lads what you got in your bags?' We end up taking most of it back to camp.

I’ve been to Aconcagua several times, 75l sac has been perfectly adequate.

That list is slightly excessive. I have summited Aconcagua twice, unguided.

Advertised v. reality pack volumes vary a lot, for different reasons. Some 90l packs are not really 90l. But a 100l pack is almost certainly too big.

But then if you're very tall then many popular packs will be too short.

How big is your sleeping bag? Are you playing it safe with a -30c monster or using a more compact -10c bag utilising parka/pants etc to make up any shortfall? Is your inflatable mat the size of a Coke can or a football? Are you taking a light synth jacket plus a big xped parka or two lighter down jackets? Several such choices will make the difference in volume between needing, say, a 75l pack over a 95l pack.

Many people leave things out when they tell you they only used a 50l pack on an expedition. Depends on access to BC (horses, porters etc?) and method of mountain. Short acclim hikes then an alpine style push, yes a 50l pack might be fine. Carrying all your gear, food and fuel at once for whatever reason, no, probably need 75-85l. Shit adds up.

If you are a big man your parka, spare clothes, sleeping bag, infl mat etc are all bigger than a small women's so you need more volume than her.

You don't need hardshell pants on Aco if you have decent softshell pants and insulated overpants as on that list. You don't need six t shirts, two is fine. Two pairs of baselayers, two pairs underwear, three pairs of socks. 6-7 underwear and socks is ridiculous. It's an expedition, not a cruise. One eating bowl, one mug, one spork plus spare spork, one pocket knife or Leatherman type tool all for above BC. No plate or 'cutlery', they should have that in BC.

If you go with a 70-75l pack then you can probably wear that in on the approach and don't need the 25l daypack. If you go 95l maybe not.

Aiguille Jorasses, Osprey Aether Pro 75, Osprey Nimsdai 90, Mountain Hardwear AMG 75, Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter 85, Macpac Torre, Gregory Baltoro Pro or Denali are all suitable packs for Aconcagua and other big mountains you may be looking at.

Have you ever worn a Kajka? Yes, Fjällräven is a hiking brand first and foremost and for technical climbing generally other brands do better, but still. 

The Kajka is incredibly comfortable, even loaded down with heavy stuff. Yes, it's a heavy pack compared to a lot of the competition, but for hauling gear to base or advanced I would say it's a pretty good pack considering the harness design makes heavy loads feel a lot lighter than they actually are. 

I'm not saying OP shouldn't consider other packs, but to dismiss this one so easily is another extreme. 

The Kajka, Gregory Baltoro and Osprey are the three most common ones recommended for bigger loads so I had initially liked it (it looks awesome) but was out off by the extra weight and the views of folk here. I may reconsider, thanks Victor. 

Thanks Damo, I had stumbled upon advice online saying you don't need to go nuts with super warm -30c sleeping bag if you combine the down insulated pants and base layer with a -10c. I like the idea in principle.

I ordered a ME Annapurna jacket last night for £300. They suggested 800 fill Down, but this is 700 but I've got a super light down Arcteryx zip up hooded jacket which I can wear with it (as well as base layer and a couple of mid layers if needs be. The 800 fill ones all look massive and I thought the Annapurna might be more compact from the pics. 

Understood on all of the other stuff, really good to know. Thank you very much.

This is all really good stuff lads, thank you so much. Attacking the gear situation is a big job and I just needed to break the back of it and have a bit of a template for what to do and I think I am inching towards it. I have identified items that look like they will work well for most of the suggested kit list. Once all of it has been purchased, I will decide between 75, 80 and 85 litre. I'll come back here and post the full list! No doubt hitting those shops in North Wales next weekend will crystallise my thinking further. It's a good bit away but man it's no small job getting sorted for and it's expensive. Very much at risk of being the "All the gear, no idea" guy but failing to prepare is preparing to fail I guess! The plan is to continue to get my fitness to where it needs to be, make no assumptions and follow orders!

It might be worth reading this to understand fill power better;

https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/what-is-down-fill-power.html

For Aconcagua that is generally true. You will probably only spend one or two nights up high enough (6100m?) for it to be really cold and you can probably manage through that with various systems - but rest assured it does get bloody cold up there, and you're not moving as fast to generate heat as you would be below 6000m. Make sure you bag is big enough to wear such clothes inside or you'll compress the loft and be cold.

Both times I've climbed it I went to the summit from Nido Condores (Camp 1) after a longer-than-normal period of acclimatisation at that and lower altitudes. Left around 10pm and summited around dawn (6am?). Above, say, 6200m at 3am or whatever, it was around -25C with a light breeze and I needed insulated overpants as well as my big parka. Had it been very windy it might have felt too hard. Most people seemed to summit a bit later so it was probably warmer for them.

Re:camping, I did make one intermediate attempt once with my gf and we camped at White Rocks(?) around 6100m or something but the night was hella windy so we went down to Nido, slept then went up again from there to the summit the next night.

Aconcagua is a bit funny like some Himalayan peaks in that on a calm sunny day mid-season you could wear jeans and trainers up to about 5300m, and overheating is an issue - but above 6000m at night barely acclimatised heading to the summit you're dressed for K2. Then, pushing up in marginal weather is how people die there.

As others have said I would recommend going to a decent outdoor shop to try out a number of rucksacks, osprey, deuter and Lowe alpine all produce well made packs. To get a good idea of fit ask to have the pack to be loaded up with weight either with products from the store or sometimes the shop will have weighted bean bags for this purpose. Loosen the hip belt , shoulder and sternum straps. The hip belt should be lined up with roughly the middle of your iliac crest on your pelvis and tightened for comfort. Then tighten the shoulder, sternum and load lifter straps. Most expedition and trekking packs either have an adjustable back system or come in a range of back sizes or both. You will need to play around with the back system such that shoulder straps drape down your back rather than just being in contact with the top of your shoulders. I’ve not done high altitude stuff but I personally would recommend not getting a bag larger than 75 litres, because you will get more use out of this sort of bag particularly if do backpacking closer to home, and there is lots of life long enjoyment to be had for the mountains of the UK and Ireland. If you want some useful reference text for your expedition check out ‘Mountaineering’ by Alun Richardson. If you want some excellent multi day routes to try out your new rucksack and get hill fit for your expedition check out Dan Bailey’s Great Mountain Days in Scotland 

Hi BN, I've got the book and actually heading up to the Cianrforms for 8 nights in 3 weeks. Hopefully in time for having the pack which I can try on in Wales. I did an outline itinerary of walks but never cross referenced Dan's book. Thanks for the reminder.

I'll throw in a vote for the Osprey Nimsdai 90. Picked one up a few weeks back and the 90l capacity does carry much better than my old 65l Lowe Alpine. Hope your trip goes well.

After reading through the thread, and trying to filter out all the grumpyness, its still not clear to me whether you expect to be routinely carrying 100L ish of gear on your back, or whether you want something to contain your gear so that it can be transported by someone else (porters, mules, alpacas or whatever).

If its the former, which I suspect is unusual on a (commercial?) expedition, then good luck I guess. Carrying all that up to 7000m and down again isn't going to be a whole lot of fun.

If its the latter then maybe get a couple of big duffles to hold all your stuff*, and a 30-40L pack to carry on the hill. Something like a Montaine Fast Alpine 40, perhaps. Best to check with the people doing the organising. Alpkit Explorer 50L duffle bags are £60 - never used them but they look sturdy enough.

(*Worth also considering how your bags will do on the plane. Rucksacks have straps etc that can easily get snagged and ripped apart in transit. Duffles will be less vulnerable.)

Good luck.

I think you are mixing up fill power of down (a measure of its quality) and weight of down in a jacket here. Higher fill power means you can get away with lower insulation weight to some degree.

Hi Andy, no grumpiness on my part. I'm just asking questions of those with more experience so that I can make informed choices on kit.  But if someone is going to essentially attack me and paint me as a buffoon, I'm going to have to challenge what they're saying. Thankfully most people have been incredibly helpful and merely conveyed useful info from personal experience. And for that I'm extremely grateful. 

Let me find the full itinerary and post it. No, I won't be going from 0-7000 metres being required to carry everything. But on "carry days" I'll need to carry something we now estimate is in the region of 75-80l worth of kit. I will be using two Duffels on their request. One for the high altitude kit which those guys bring to higher camps on mules / using group porters. The rest we carry most of the way (except rotation days where we are going up and down from / to the same camp) unless using porters. So if you remove the double boots, the hard shell pants and down jacket then maybe it is sensible to get something closer to 75 and sounds like that will be more than enough. 

Hi Damo, I'm tempted to start a separate thread to invite comment on sleeping bags and optimal systems as my worry is if I get a bag which is well suited for super cold conditions (which I'll only need for 2-3 nights perhaps?) will I absolutely boil up at lower altitudes? The concern being that lack of sleep due to overheating presumably will wear me down over the course of the expedition so energy levels are not where they need to be for a summit push. 

https://www.outdoorkit.co.uk/product.php?product_id=24897&utm_source=fr...

This looks to be adequate for my needs on those super cold nights, but how will I manage to get a comfortable night's sleep lower down? One of the links posted above takes you to a trip / kit report from a guy who brought a cold bag and a lighter bag from down low and he seems to suggest it's a God send. Thoughts on this?

Are you able to wash things at some point? Certain points of the list give the impression that this isn't going to be an option. 
Assuming that it will be (or that, if it isn't, you can slum it a bit for the duration), and with all the breezy confidence of an armchair mountaineer, I've taken the liberty of editing your list a little:

Half that. 

Maybe combine; just have a pair of windproof fleecy ones

Could probably just pick one or the other

Use a t-shirt

Eat out of the cooking pan; a spoon is the only cutlery you need

Put hot water in your Nalgene

Use your Nalgene

I've taken one and wished I'd had the other on numerous occasions, but picking one would cut down on bulk a bit  

Use your softshells

How much rain is expected? As someone mentioned above, you could probably do without

Flip-flips would pack a bit smaller

One or the other - probably take the trail shoes for lightness and comfort

Half the t-shirts, ditch the hard shell and light insulated jacket

Open the zip?

Try to resist ...

You're overthinking it, but anway...

That bag is good but far from the best/warmest despite the 1000 number. Using 90/10 700 rather than 800/850/900 FP down means it will be heavier than if had used better quality down. 1.6kg is a heavy bag.

The Extreme temp rating on most bags is a bit meaningless, whereas the Comfort level of -25C is probably a truer gauge of it's real-use level. If it's genuinely -35C or -40C and you're in a -25C Comfort bag you'll be in trouble and doing all sorts of things that will render the label's -40C limit irrelevant. 

Two bags is overkill for Aconcagua, but it's done on 8000ers as most people have others carrying their kit for them BUT if you are carrying your own kit then you don't want to be shuttling your sleeping bag up and down with you every time. I did this on Gasherbrum 1 years ago but as it turned out BC was bloody cold, around -20C and C2 was fine so I was lucky my two bags were both fairly high end ones and I didn't have a significantly 'lighter' one at BC.

I can't remember what your plans are but Denali and Vinson both require big bags, I'd say around -30C Comfort level. If you're not doing those then go lighter. A good quality, well kept down bag is something you can always re-sell if you decide it's all a bit shit. The corollary of that is you might look at what is available second-hand online as people often sell big bags after their big trip. Saving a couple hundred quid will take the stress out of going top-end.

LOL. OK, I'll stop overthinking it. But you know how it is? You have guys on various discussion forums pouring over this stuff. Best do due diligence and if I get told I'm overdoing it then I can chill the feck out. 

I've decided to rent the boots, sleeping bag, high altitude mittens, ice axe and crampons and take directions from the kit suppliers as to the best choices. If it's a successful mission, I will then look to purchase the good stuff for Denali and further Himalayan mountains. I mean there's an argument that if over the next few years I progress from Peru to Denali to Ama Dablam to Gasherbrum 2 etc then renting every time will probably be a better decision financially as one big trip a year is all that would be feasible financially anyway? I don't think I'd want to rent the down parka so starting off with a £300 Annapurna by Mountain equipment seems like it is sufficient for this trip with some added layering if needed? Grateful for your thoughts on that. 

One other question: if I decide to get a porter on Aconcagua (and Denali would be putting the duffel bag on a sled), would Peruvian trips and all of the Himalayan ones all have porter / Sherpa access? If so, I can even go 65l which would be more suitable for British camping etc ? Grateful for your thoughts. 

The Annapurna will be fine for Aconcagua.

Renting is a good idea to begin, just make sure you have a choice of boots to try on. If you think you want to continue then buy boots, if nothing else.

In Peru you can get porters to high camps, if you wish, at least on popular peaks like Huascaran and Alpamayo.

The issue with Denali is that from 14k to 17k you carry everything in one or two carries so you need a big pack then. And possibly from 11k to 14k you'll prefer carry it all in a pack rather than wrestle your sled around Windy Corner. So that's another day or two you need a big pack. Depending how you're doing things, in what kind of group etc, you may get away with a 65-70l pack.

65l is overkill for most things in the UK unless you're carrying camera gear or kids stuff. With modern lightweight gear you should be able to camp for a weekend with a 50l pack.

The duffel bags have back straps on them don't they? Obviously not the optimal support but I think that portion would be a horrible slog regardless?

It seems to me that the rucksack is the last thing to think about. Decide on everything else you are ever going to have to carry at one time, put it in stuff sacks or whatever and then take them to a gear shop and see what size or rucksack you need for it. Get it a bit on the roomy size - cramming things in is a bit different when knackered in a freezing wind with cold hands and an altitude headache. And make sure it is comfortable to carry the weight.

Whoa... hang on, I'm all about the fast and light but are you suggesting using you're drinking bottle as a piss bottle??? That is hardcore 

Also Briansy, for a piss bottle use a wide mouthed soft one so you can easily pack away when not in use. This also makes it easer to snuggle for those cold, cold nights when a cosy bottle of your own urine seems suddenly appealing.

Also write "piss" on it to avoid any unfortunate confusion.

In response to briansy:

The old saying "HYOH" (Hike Your Own Hike) encourages making personal decisions; it's also commonly stated that a larger pack will inevitably get filled. My choice is a ZPacks Go-lite pack.

The topic of pack weight has been extensively debated in forums, particularly its impact on the body and the potential for gradual physical damage, especially to the knees and back. That is, one may feel fine for weeks, then suddenly aches emerge, often leading to the difficult decision to stop hiking.

There is an alternative, as I've witnessed others discard quality gear to lighten their loads during trips.

Becoming a lightweight hiker took time and money, but now I manage with a 6kg load including my pack, clothes, and cooking gear; it's 10kg when I add five days' worth of food and water, with water being treated overnight and replenished en route.

I've logged approximately 10,000 hiking miles since retiring 18 years ago, including Great Britain from end to end, the GR5 across Europe, and 1,400 miles in the US on the Appalachian Trail and the John Muir Trail in California.

Starting as a lightweight hiker was fortunate, and despite numerous campfire debates, I remain convinced of its benefits.

Sounds like a great story!

You don’t want to be carrying a fully loaded duffel as a backpack across a glacier. Lugging mine on the tube across London to Heathrow for various trips was bad enough.

Edit: I’d say buy for the trip before you. If 75L looks right for Aconcagua then go for that. You can always reassess later for other trips and I think(?) Denali is a bit of an outlier as far as needing 100L bags on popular routes. You can always rent a bigger bag later if you need one and don’t want to buy a second pack.

Only when it's not got drinking water in

Say whaaat, you rinse it out then drink out of it?? Regrdless of sensitivities I have never managed to remove the smell from my piss bottle. (It has been banished to the shed as a reminder of adventures past). How do you wash it when you're melting snow for water? What happens when you need a drink in the night? So many questions.

Also just remembered another top tip for the OP, don't shove your full bottle in the corner of your tent where it will freeze, defrosting the ensuing icey yellow block of unpleasantness is not much fun.

Don't minimise British hills; the successful first ascent of Everest was done after training in Snowdonia! 

Whatever you settle on, make sure you do lots of practice on UK hills with your kit before you set off. Just because something gets 5 star reviews and recommendations doesn't mean it will work for you. When I was refining my kit for thru-hiking, I spent many weekends on Dartmoor and walking routes around Somerset (very humble hills in comparison) but it was vital for learning what worked and what didn't for me. 

Also, hill fitness will be vital for something high. You don't want to be thinking about your tired legs when you're above 6000m. Thrashing up and down UK hills with a heavy bag will be much better at preparing you than any training in a gym. 

If I were you, I'd be doing the Welsh 3000s every weekend with an overnight and camping kit, regardless of weather.

I think (hope) he is winding you up.

If not he is truly hardcore and has my full respect.

But I wouldn't kiss him.

Shame, that's the kind of of old school gnarr missing from today's alpinism. I bet Mark Twight drank from his piss bottle. 

A tip I was given was to wrap a length of gaffer tape around your drinking water bottle. That way you can tell the difference even in the dark, and you have some tape handy for emergency repairs out on the hill as you'll have your water bottle with you.

This is all very interesting, but briansy doesn't want to go thru-hiking, he wants to climb the highest mountain in the world outside of the Himalayas, so not really the same thing is it?

What? He´s changed his plans to K2?

Doubt it's a windup. I'm def not hardcore, I've done it quite a bit. First time was when my (85l) pack was so full I simply couldn't fit another thing in, so pee bottle was out and I pissed in my eating jug. But then of course you have to throw it out immediately, lest it spill, not convenient, so eventually I just peed in one of my Nalgene bottles.

Tip it out, throw in a cup or less of boiling water, swish it around and toss it. Fill with water for the day. 

You get used to the minimalist efficiency of it and now I find it hard to justify adding the unnecessary volume of a pee bottle.

 Nowadays I use a Nalgene 1 ltr Collapsible Wide Mouth Canteen. Rolls up small, easy to tell in the dark that its not your water bottle and keeps me free of (some) delusions

https://ultralightoutdoorgear.co.uk/cantene-wide-mouth-soft-water-bottles/

OK, I was confused by your comment, so I found this on Wikipedia's Himalayas entry "The Karakoram are generally considered separate from the Himalayas." This is new to me at least, I always thought the Himalayas ran from central Asia (the Pamirs) all the way to the Burmese mountains (they have a big 5000 or 6000 mtr peak don't they?).

Can you or anyone else explain why my understanding was wrong? I guess I got my view from reading lots of Himalayan mountaineering books in the 80s and early 90s, and I'm sure that the Karakoram were always talked about as part of the Himalayas.

No one likes a bragger. 

I used to think the same, i.e. that the Karakorum were a kind of sub-range within the Himalyas. I think it´s a quite widely spread misconception.

The Karakorum are on the other side of the river Indus, which is widely used as the marker for the Himalaya. They're all part of the same 'complex', as is the Hindu Kush, but a different range. Nanga Parbat is the Himalaya I believe, which probably confuses things as it is close to and further west than K2 (and also in Pakistan). 

But now I want to know why not! Is a tectonic plate thing so similar?

Same with KIMM/OMM overnight camp.

I was about to start a rant about how you really shouldn't by drinking your own piss on the OMM, but then I rembered a time on the KIMM it was raining so hard I just couldn't face going outside so whent in my mug, there was however a small stream running under the tent so when I chucked the contents out the fly it just came back in. My partner was not impressed. 

Is there some OMM rule that you are only allowed to drink someone else’s?

Don’t think tectonic plates have anything to do with it, otherwise Snowdon could be part of the Cairngorms etc. but I was always bad at geography in school.

Thats the kind of thing I'd expect from Mark Twight, but also from Bear Ghrylls and I have a lot more respect for the former than the later. 

Why anyone would piss in their water bottle during the KIMM is beyond me, brave the elements, surely you are equipped to deal with some heavy rain?

I reckon getting up and out of my tent in the middle of the night to get rained on makes me more hardcore than some lazy sod who would just stay in bed and piss in a bottle, but not as gnarr as Martk Twight, and probably not even as much as Bear.

We seem to have gone a bit off topic.

I vaguely recall Himalayas and Karakoram being formed by two different processes or of slightly different origins, even if the overall cause of the orogeny was the same (collision of the plates).

I think that their geology is a bit different as well, as Himalayas are more sedimentary, while Karakoram more metamorphic and even igneous. Or something like Karakoram being the remnants of rock that got subducted at the plate boundary, and spitted out as igneous and uplifted by the later initial collision, or being part of the Eurasian plate, with Himalayas the rolled up carpet of the Indian plate. Or even Karakoram being part of a terrane that split off earlier...

Whatever, I am not a geologist

I just remember that most of the models of orogeny there mention some difference, even if part of the whole Greater Himalayan complex, even if they might not exactly agree on the details.

Any proper geologist please tear my post apart...

Sorry, did I say **my** water bottle?  I meant my (heavy sleeper) partner’s. 

Exactly, no argument there at all. It's a miracle I ever climbed anything, really.

My comment was meant to be about the KIMM. I'm certainly not qualified to to comment on toilet habits on an 8000m peak or when its a -20c blizzard outside the tent. 

They're definitely separate, always have been, though some fudge it with allowing the Karakoram and Hindu Kush (and Hindu Raj) into the Greater Himalaya, which is clearly madness on a parallel with imagining you can feel the wind through eVent )

And it's Himalaya. Singular, not plural. There is only one' abode of snow'.

And it's more properly pronounced him-AR-lee-a rather than HIM-a-lay-a.

And the eastern end of the Himalaya was traditionally considered to be anchored by Namche Barwa at the Great Bend of the Tsangpo. But really there are big mountains further east of here like Kawa Karpo (Meilixueshan) in Yunnan and Gongga Shan (Minya Konka) in Sichuan, and more in between. The mountain you refer to in Myanmar is Hkakabo Razi and is detached a bit more to the southeast.

I've only done a bit of trekking in Nepal a very long time ago and a couple of trips to the Himachal Pradesh, so nothing in Pakistan or Indian Kashmir - so forgive my ignorance, but is it really obvious where the Himalaya end and the Karakorum start? Is there a big flat area in between - even if it is a high plain? Paul mentioned the Indus - is the river and its valley a clear boundary? I seen it actually rises in Tibet, so I guess it does cut through the mountain range - so if it is the only river to do so, it would make a logical western end point to the Himalaya. 

BTW, I've always used the singular for Himalaya despite suspecting that it might be a bit middle-class-white-kid-on-a-gap-year pretentious, but noticed yesterday that the Wiki article has the s!

What were you imagining might happen? Granted it wouldn't be my go-to on a family camping jaunt in Devon, but on a multi-day/week trip the baseline for propriety isn't the same.

To be clear, though, I do see this as the lazy option and would happily agree getting up, kitting up and heading out into a lashing rainstorm is more hardcore. I also don't do it if sharing a tent with someone who is less well equipped, physiologically - it takes a certain kind of monster to hold a steady gaze with their tent buddy while pissing into a bottle, knowing they can't do likewise.

(Though even then there'd probably be a point I might reconsider; the death-zone, perhaps, or full midge season)

True story [well, allegedly, i was in the next tent over but did not witness it]. A friend doing KIMM with his girlfriend held the large zip lock bag in the tent while she peed in it.  

I think we might have drifted away from 100 litre rucsacs.

Love this thread's slow but steady bifurcation away from bitchy rucksack capacity commentary into mountain piss etiquette and himalayan geography

OK I know this is massively off topic but a related funny story...

I was on a 2 week trip in Alaska up on a glacier, the first night my friends girlfriend tried to use a sheewee for the first time in the tent, all went fine until she realised the pipe wasn't in the piss bottle but nestled in her down sleeping bag she had to spend the next 14 nights in! 

The situation was not helped by my freind being somewhat ungentlemanly and referring to her as 'pissymcpissface' for the rest of the trip.

A friend of mine went on a road trip with his new girlfriend; the first night he cooked a big chili con carne, ate most of it, farted all night in the car, and when he woke up she’d already left and was hitchhiking home.

Yes the western end of the Himalaya is at Nanga Parbat, which then drops down to the Indus River. The Indus does cut through the Karakoram, in the west, but before that it does a long arc over above the Karakoram from near Mt Kailas further east in Tibet. In climbing articles you sometimes see Nanga Parbat included in the Karakoram, because it's in Pakistan, but it's the Himalaya.

There is an overlap between the ends of the Himalaya and the Karakoram, with a gap between, just west of Ladakh. The end of the Himalaya is to the south, running west through Nun-Kun and ending at Nanga Parbat.

To the north is the start of the East Karakoram (Saser Kangri etc north of the Nubra River) which then runs west through the Baltoro, the Hispar etc until it meets the Hindu Kush over west of the Batura chain. The Hindu Raj is kind of squeezed in just above that and below the Pamir.

Despite this, I still think 100l is overkill for Aconcagua, that it's fine to piss in a drink bottle, and eVent is definitely windproof.

I'm going study Google Earth closely to see if I can envision the Himalaya/Karakorum border more clearly in my head. Would any geologist care to explain if the Karakorum are made in a different way from the Himalaya? I thought the Himalaya were the result of the Indian tectonic plate crashing into the Eurasian one?

Sounds very sensible, knowing how hard carrying 75 ltrs/25 kgs is.

Sounds very weird behaviour but you do you.

eVent probably is, but NEOSHELL isn't! (do you know its over a decade since this argument started!)

But let's face it, when it comes to high altitude mountaineering how to piss in a bottle is far more important than which rucksack to take.

Pretty sure they are orogenically the same mountain range but just parts given different names. Same with the Cairngorms and the Southern Highlands.

As far as I can see (again, I am no geologist and there are still competing theories on the orogeny), they might be indeed different (i.e. raised by different processes, even if from the same plate collision).

Perhaps this cross‑section might help:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cross-section-of-the-western-Himalaya-a...

Or the whole paper (not that accessible to non‑geologists, sadly):

Anatomy, age and evolution of a collisional mountain belt: The Baltoro granite batholith and Karakoram Metamorphic Complex, Pakistani Karakoram
January 2010Journal of the Geological Society 167(1):183-202
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492009-043

Mind you, it's all still debated, it seems.

It looks from that as if the Karakorum are part of the Asian plate and the Himalaya part of the Indian plate, so geologically different but both pushed up in their mutual collision. 

Damo (or anyone else), I've taken delivery of Rab Argon insulated trousers. Super warm and fit well if very puffy - the recommendation being to wear a merino wool base layer and (possibly but very much optional depending on weather) a hard shell over the insulated pants. A good choice of pants do you think? The only drawback I can see is there isn't a zip down the sides for delayering purposes but I can't see anyone wanting to remove layers on summit day? Obviously these will need to serve me in other environments too...

Looks like that to me as well, possibly also forming at somewhat different time (see another diagram below from the same paper), though I've seen a few a few different explanation as well. Might do for some interesting pub talk with a geologist friend, even if that's not really their geographical area of expertise.

https://ibb.co/6nL2VzZ

Apart from the lack of side zips (which might be ok or not for your case, no idea), you might perhaps want some support braces as well? I am not a big fan of insulated trousers without braces, apart from just hobbling around a cold winter camp. No idea for your trip – maybe they'll serve you well without them, but you might still want to try that yourself doing some high steps in them wearing the whole shebang. Best to know whether they will ride down or not beforehand...

Good shout. They're quite tight on the waist band (but generous and free moving in the seat and elsewhere) so I'm hoping this takes care of that but will try them out as you suggest and see what other users have said about slideage!

This may sound like a gratuitously facetious comment in order to return the thread to the subject of relieving oneself at altitude, (and if I'm honest it partly is) but aside from fit and warmth, the most important feature of overtrousers of any sort is that when you urgently need a shite you can easily open them at the back without any danger of 'accidents' or indeed having to take them, and your crampons/skis off.

In the book "One man's climb", Adrian Hayes talks about how he was dying for a shit for the last several hours of his ascent of K2 and his climbing partner was so desperate he had to get a Sherpa to undo his trousers as he essentially shat off the side of the mountain! 

Interestingly, on the subject of piss bottles his view was: take a big one!! One of the worries about this Aconcagua expedition is my tendency to pee 3-4 times through the night on most nights. I think I have the capacity to really piss off whoever I'm sharing a tent with...

I frequently pee over a litre in one go. I have a 1L old style Nalgene bottle which I repurposed for this. One night in my van after quite a lot of ale, I nearly had an overflow. A fraught moment, thankfully contained due to functional ab muscles. If I was going to be regularly peeing in a bottle in a tent, I'd get a bigger bottle.

Not to mention almost the entirety of Norway (including Svalbard), eastern Greenland and the Appalachian Mountains in eastern USA... 

So now we're on to pants then, OK...

Personally I'd have gone with synthetic (Primaloft etc) for overpants as you're more likely to damage the bum/knee/lower leg with crampons, axes, falls etc or get them wet from snow, tent spills or that 65 bloke here who pisses a litre at a time. Down will either float out and away or go into a wet clump, whereas synth will survive all this.

Putting down pants under hardshell pants is generally* terrible advice imo. They already have a windproof shell (unless they're Toby's Neoshell ones) so putting such things under a (barely) breathable hardshell will mean your sweat will wet the down and render it like 65 has pissed a litre all over it. Down is mostly* only good as a midlayer when it's very very cold and you're moving very slow at very high altitude. If it's wet enough to need hard shell pants it's likely not cold enough to need down pants.

And yes, side zips would definitely be better, particularly on Aconcagua as it may well be warm enough on your way down to want to take them off. Down pants without zips are warmer, lighter and cheaper to make, and often used for just standing/lounging around BC, and so are not really made for actually climbing in.

*yes yes, I realise there are some times when it's cold and you're not exerting yourself too much that having a light down jacket under a hardshell is not terrible.

I remember encountering some interesting rock, including frozen coal slurry near summits of hills on Spitzbergen - these were sedimentary rocks about 40 million years old, far younger than the Atlantic. Something pushed that lot up a lot more recently than the Caledonian Orogeny.

Their coal is made from recognisable trees like beeches.

Desperately trying to drag this thread back to the wet stuff.  

The above goes doubly so if on the diamox.

Yes indeed, the mountains along western Spitsbergen formed during a transpressional event (both strike slip and compression) that started during the Eocene. An event largely linked to the wider Eurekan orogeny. The tertiary rocks still seen in the central part of Spitsbergen were deposited in the associated foreland basin - interestingly in a well vegetated, peat rich landscape at a time when the Svalbard area was even further north than it is today.

In the deeper geology, you find the expression of the Caledonian Orogeny from the collision between Laurentia and Baltica. This is typically found in the northernmost part of Spitsbergen that has been repeatedly exhumed due to several tectonic, volcanic and glacial events.

Nice big white-painted monument on the KKH at Nanga Parbat declares it to be a view of the meeting point of three mountain ranges - Himalaya, Hindu Kush and Karakoram. Quite cool. I don't rely on random monument-builders to get their geology right, but it had a charming diagram and everything. 

Meeting point of the Abode of Snows, Black Gravel range (knew those two) and the Hindu Killer (wikipedia tells me now....) gives a bit of context to how things get named and how definitive the names should be considered. 

Mind you the monument was nineteen years ago. Things might have moved about a bit since. 

Y

Yes, I've stopped at that point a few times. I think there's a sign as you're facing north that says something like "Look behind you!" to see Nanga Parbat.

They may or may not be a bit off on the Hindu Kush meeting there, but on a related note, iirc via someone who knows much more than me on these things, the meeting point of the Hindu Kush, Hindu Raj and Karakoram is around a very nice unclimbed 6000m peak up in the Pak-China-Afghan border region. Some British climbers have been angling to go there for a while now but it's currently not permitted. A 75l pack would be sufficient for this peak, a pee bottle would certainly be handy, but I think insulated overpants are probably not needed.

Thanks so much for this. I've exchanged the down pants for the Rab photon. Seems a much better choice based on your post. I've also cancelled the order for the Tupilak hard pants. I've got Galvin Green pac lite waterproofs that will do the job just fine. I've got a shed load of other stuff on the way and will be in Llanberis by tomorrow afternoon where I'll do a proper scour!!

Looking forward to this walk to kick off the long weekend

 https://www.alltrails.com/en-gb/trail/wales/gwynedd/tryfan-glyder-fach-cast...

That's a bloody great day out, but if you haven't done it before, it's a scramble more than it is a hike. From memory, going up Tryfan you just have to zig zag about a bit to find the best way, but Bristly Ridge is superb because the crest of the ridge is generally the best way - but it is definitely not walking, you need to use your hands and climb carefully. Not just one of the best scrambles in Wales though, I reckon Bristly is up there as one of the best in the UK. But take it easy - it is proper scrambling.

The pic below is last time I did Bristly Ridge - in fantastic winter conditions, two Decembers ago. I doubt it will be that snowy this weekend, but gives a good idea of terrain and the towers you have to wiggle around.

Hi Toby, have you done the Devil's ladder on Carantoohil in Ireland? Just wondering how it compares? I like a good scramble and relieved to see winds are going to be manageable this weekend...

I'm afraid I haven't, but there are loads of youtube vids and articles on Bristly Ridge (and Tryfan North Ridge) which will give you a really fair idea of what you are getting yourself in to! Have fun, like I said, it's a grand day. 

You can't even get out of your van for a slash, lazy sod!

I confess I've never peed into anything except a toilet or fresh air.

You are missing out. A pee bottle is pretty well life changing when camping or in a van.

Really? Shower? Bath? When swimming? Life's small pleasures......

With reference to people telling you you need far fewer t-shirts/pants, this only works if they're fast-drying and you're able to wash them. Propensity to suffering tummy troubles might influence your pants number decision!

Rucksac - How about a 75 and strap-on pockets if necessary? Aiguille alpine do two sizes of strap-on pockets, I used them with a 65-85 Cerro torre on a 9 day unsupported trek in Norway. The side pockets of the Cerro Torre are rubbish anyway. You do need a pack with compression traps they'll fit on though, some packs have daft diagonal straps.

Or if you don't mind being scummy.

There's a thick cloud over the mountains today and forecast suggests it will likely stay. Just tying to figure out if it's even worth going high at all and just stick to lower level walks. Fecking typical. 

If I was starting training for some major mountains i would get out and get some hill work in, possibly not involving scrambling if not confident about going that in damp misty conditions.

If I wasn't I took would probably stick to a nice low level walk.

If you've got OS maps on your phone along with the paper map and compass, that's a reasonably easy route to follow in poor weather because you're following edges all day. Good luck.

Good nav practice? (It might also help to develop the positive mental approach you will probably need on bigger stuff)

Yes, the mental side. And a chance to test my new kit! OK, high it is. 

https://www.alltrails.com/en-gb/trail/wales/conwy/pen-yr-ole-wen-carnedd-ll...

Doing this one

If that route goes up Pen yr Ole Wen from Idwal then doing that with a heavy pack will be just the ticket for fitness. Enjoy!

That seems relatively pleasant comparted to what I have seen in the LAMM slit trenches!

Some great ideas from this guy in his book (see below) well worth a read;. He hiked the AT, PCT and the CDT with his lightweight pack, some mountains to climb in that lot. 

Ultralight: The Ray Jardine Way

He rocked the world of climbing, challenged the accepted wisdom in sea kayaking, and then Ray Jardine turned his renegade way of thinking to backpacking.

I have no connection with Ray Jardine; however he inspired the way I hike and backpack.

Yup, it's a long steep opening part up to Pen yr Ole Wen that's for sure! Just about to to reach it unscathed. Thick fog but no rain happy days. 

My pack probably had about 7-8kg. Which was fine but for some reason I assumed the walk would be handy enough. It was no joke!  If I had been carrying 15+K I'd have struggled! Some proper fiddly scrambling in those last couple of hills and steep drop offs. The white out probably made it seem harder but took me 4.5 hours. Pity I couldn't take in the views but really loved it. 

I got into my car and everywhere around was deluged in dense rain. Got incredibly lucky bit not hopeful for tomorrow 

You cannot possibly have had a 'white out' on those hills today. You'll get one eventually ...

Haha I don't know why I used that term, it was a bit of fog!

The devils ladder is the standard way up the mountain but it’s become an eroded gully with lots of loose rock, and is not considered a scramble, there are better ways up Corrán Tuathail like O’Sheas Gully, which has a few scrambled steps. My memory of climbing Bristly Ridge was that it was like ascending a steep blocky staircase, a really enjoyable scramble.

https://kerrymountainrescue.ie/carrauntoohil-route-descriptions/

Interesting it's not considered a scramble as you use your hands for most of the way up it. I always thought a scramble was a section where you had to use your hands but there must be more to the definition than that if the Devil's ladder is not a scramble? Will give O'Shea's gully a go next time I'm there. 

It’s not a true scramble which can be described as low grade rock climbing, particularly with grade 3 scrambles. More difficult scrambles may be more exposed and committing and may need the use of a rope and climbing protection. The devil’s ladder is not a true rock climb but a heavily eroded path, it is considered the normal route up the mountain but is pretty treacherous with loose rock and eroding boulder clay, and as you would have seen you need at least three points of contact in places for security. It’s particularly hazardous in wet weather where it can become a watercourse, or when iced up in winter so it’s no walk in the park m. There are a number of graded scrambles on the peaks around Corrán Tuathail and the hill itself like the Reeks ridge, the Beenkeeragh Ridge plus a number of more difficult multi pitch climbs like the Hags Tooth ridge up Stumpa an t-Saimh, Howling Ridge and Pipets Ridge. The Caher na Feinne ridge is my favourite and mildly scrambly in places, but mostly quality hill walking in an airy position. The sandstone rock is pretty solid and you can see the ripples of sand in the rock, when it used to be a seabed rather than a mountain top. There are a number of guides that lead scrambles up the Reeks like Piaras Kelly from Kerry Climbing or Con Moriarty from Hidden Ireland tours. Also check out Dan Baileys book ‘Ridges of England, Wales and Ireland.