And how does pack weight effect that time?
I have been trying to get an estimate of the time it would take to get from one location to another in the park.  A big part of that is the time to do portages.  How much difference in time difference is there between crossing with a pack and the return trip. So to find out how long a portage would take I timed my self while walking my dog.  I wore my GPS and found that the rout I take is 2.69 miles.  The course crosses a couple of ravines and has 2 large hills to clime. About half of the rout is un trail woods. It is easy walking woods but not like a path or trail. I started with no pack and then added a pack and progressively added weight.  I changed packs in the middle of the test because I thought the other pack carried better.  
Pk WT Lb.       Mi      Time Min            
0                 2.69      55            11/14/09
24                 2.69      59            11/15/09
45                 2.69      74      Raining& stopped 2 times to adjust
                                               BluePack      11/26/09
45                2.69      77      Wet but dryer than yesterday. Green pack fits better But Compresses chest      11/27/09
57                2.69      76      Better adjusted pack Dryer than last time      11/29/09


Although a heavy pack slows me down it is not as much as I would have thought.
MagicPaddler

Man I wish I had some peoples free time.

Old Salt wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 1:02am:


OS,

Try telling that to my son ,Mr Evinrude. We should be more like S2 and take pictures on the portages.


Magic

The average person walks 3 MPH unloaded. Including load and unload time, over the years, my observations have noted that easier portages seem to work out to 2 MPH, average portages about 1.5 MPH and ugly portages (Fern to Olifaunt at days end in 80 degree weather:)) 1 MPH or less. In my travels, the majority of groups that I have seen double portage so the length of the portage must be multiplied by three. Using 320 rods as one mile one must do the math from there. BUSHWACKING though is an entirely different story. All bets are off and all calculations out the window.......as you and KF already know. You and KF both have my respect

Comrade WR

Quote:


1) Too much free time...
2) Overthinkin'...
3) Let us know how this translates in real time on your trip...
4) Don't forget your stopwatch!
5) With the time you save, you could save on your car insurance...

"Although a heavy pack slows me down it is not as much as I would have thought."

think again though, about the cumulative affect of that heavy pack - you only carried your pack once on your test- now double that for each portage, and then throw in a big fudge factor for the 10th portage of the day, maybe for the third day in a row.  Though I agree with taking one heavy load for the first of two trips, and the lighter load for the second trip.

Double tripping the portages, I guess I use a 1 mph rate for the one way distance, more or less.  I'm a fast walker and can do the return trip for load #2 at better than  3 mph - a fast pace for a woods trail, and probably for the most part, can keep to a 3mph pace while carrying the gear (note that those are light loads though)

But I don't just use the 1 mph rate -- what I do is assume 10 min unloading, and 10 min re-loading - that includes moving the canoe to shore and tieing, and setting it back in the water to laod again.  No it doesn't always take that long, but over the long haul, it averages out - that gives me some time to take pics, or do whatever.  So I plan a minimum of 20 minutes, even for a simple 10 rod portage (regardless of the fact that it won't take that long) - then I add the 1 mph rate for the distance, more or less.  That way, if I take time to saw some deadfall out of the trail, or can't find the start of the portage, or the water is too low, or there are new beaver ponds, or the portage landing is really crappy and takes twice as long as normal to deal with, I have some extra time built in.  For me, over the 8 or 10 portages I'm likely to be doing in a day, it does average out pretty closely to what I've planned.  

About the same as using 3mph for paddling - it averages out over a long day.  And I rarely finish my day early, normally I'll be about on schedule or I'll br running behind due to headwinds, or difficult portage conditions.

I do what you are thinking of, that is, I plan an itinerary for each day so I know how to get from point A to point B in 3 days travel.  Then I fine tune to adjust - maybe for getting to a certain spot on day 3, I'll have to make day 2 longer than originally planned - maybe I'll have to get up an hour earlier, and or travel a lot later, but at least I have a plan that will get me where I want to be, more or less when I want to get there.  That works about the same for a solo trip or tendem or group trip, though group trips will definitely be slower.


edit: if that didn't make sense - for a one mile portage, I'd use 1 hour, plus the 10+ 10 minutes load unload time for a total of 1 1/2 hours.

QPassage wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 4:20pm:


THAT might explain who lost the "herb" and pipe on the other post

What I am trying to do is to find what works best for me.  I already know I do not like carrying more than 60 LB.  Adjustment of the pack can not only make it more comfortable but also make it take less time to cross a portage.  My  rout is 2.69 miles which is longer than a single trip across a portage.  I am trying to simulate a long double portage maybe near the end of the day. I have some other changes to test but I do not think I will see how comfortable it is to do naked ( a lot of multifora rose! Ouch).
Well it keeps me in shape anyhow.
Magicpaddler

QPassage wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 1:58am:



See, it ain't rocket science!! Just do the math...

This turns out to be way too complex for me. I figure, long portages take longer than short portages. Of course, if I've been across a trail before, I have a pretty good idea. But things change. Consider, for example, the change from the south side of Kashashapiwi after the beaver dam got removed. Before I got there, I knew the dam was gone and could take that into account. But suppose you get somewhere and did not know of a change in the trail? Yet, I guess science can be applied to whatever.

Tim

I used to be able to do...not sure it is still relevant 'cuz I am slowing down...one McKenzie map east/west per day, or north/south in a day and a half. 
Not surprised Magic is getting this all worked out...he IS an analytical type scientist by trade.  He also can charge through a bushwack like a bull moose while the rest of us are pussy-footin' around the tough spots 

Thanks QP I have got all of that down.

My estimations have been known too not be to far off.  On a trip recently I estimated arriving on McKenzie late in the afternoon of the first day in the park. We actually got there early afternoon ….. the next day. Oh well.

Yes I enjoy a good bushwhack and have fond memories of them.
MagicPaddler

MP
I have always been a frame pack guy.  My old Camp Trails has made many trips into the Q.  I also have an internal frame pack and I to like the comfort of how it fits on my back while portaging.  Only issue I've had with the external pack is it will scratch the canoe and it is harder to get in and out of the canoe.  What I really like about frame packs are the compartments, saves digging for those little things when you need them.  Food is an issue in these packs it is harder to pack in smaller areas.  But, I usually pack freeze dried and smaller type foods from the grocery.  
I did find this year on a river trip I took, that if you take a freeze dried pouch and poke a hole in it, then put it in a ziplock freezer vac bag it saves a ton of space.  We would put everything in one bag for that meal then vac it down.  
Take a look at this site (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) they have monthly deals and the hamburger is fantastic with those hamburger helper meals.

qp

All of the packs do have hip belts.  The most expensive, newest and with the most adjustments is the most uncomfortable.  The weight does sag down more in the 2 non frame packs than the frame pack.

Mad Mat raises the most critical weakness, for me, of the frame pack. If big enough to hold much gear, the external frame packs don't fit in the canoe very well. And I have several external frame packs and use them often -- for other purposes.

Tim

Long before I added north country canoeing to my slate of outdoor activities, I'd given away all of my external frame packs and gone to internal frame models.  For me, they offered the advantage of being closer to your body and less likely to tip you if your center of balance is not exactly right.

It was a lucky choice for me in that the internal frame packs seem to form to the shape of a canoe more easily than an external frame.  Furthermore, since I mostly paddle solo, they more easily fit into a solo canoe hull.  Generally, my objective is to have minimal (to no) pack profile above the gunwale line.  An external frame fits in very nicely in this context.

My most recent set of pack purchases have been along the lines of an internal frame pack, but with "waterproof" exteriors. 

Yes, admittedly, I have to dig to the bottom of the pack for certain things, but then I don't have exterior pockets to snag on things while loading/unloading or portaging.

dd

Well, people no doubt snicker at us at every portage (behind our backs, of course--we haven't noticed any blatant disrespect) because my main pack is an external frame pack.  It was purchased many years ago with my bulging disk  and my recent rotator cuff surgery in mind, and I was fitted very carefully for comfort in carrying a heavy load.  It is our main food pack.  I carry the bulk of our food inventory in this pack (freeze-dried food, dried fruits, drink mixes, most of the snack items, the lunch stuff like cheese, summer sausage and crackers, etc.) and also three nalgenes of filtered water in the side pockets, and our rain gear is on the top of the big section for easy access.  The sleeping pads are tied to the bottom.  To make it even more unwieldy-looking we now tie a couple of small camp stools to the outside of it!  I suspect I look sort of like the junk man going down the portage!   

When we load our canoe we don't have our packs level with the gunnels and that has always bothered me.  Our profile is a bit too high.  The big Duluth (tent) pack is in the bottom, and a large Sealine bag (duffle) is behind my seat with this frame pack leaning against it at an angle.  We aren't HIGH above the water, but a bit higher than I am comfortable with.  So we try not to venture out on big water in high winds, and we are fairly cautious about dangerous waters.

But I do like the frame pack.  It is convenient for use, the small pockets are good for the snack items, and I have never found a problem with them catching on anything, although it has been a few years since we did any bushwhacking.   

Mainly I like it because it is comfortable for me on a long portage.  The hip strap makes the weight distribution easier on my back and I seem to have better balance with this type of pack.  I also portage the SeaLine bag, which is a large one, and do well with it, but I have often wished it were the kind with a hip strap.  (new purchase may be in the works on that.)

We are 64 and we probably aren't going to be purchasing a great deal of new gear for our trips at this point.  I read about what everyone SHOULD have and I think back to what we USED to have, look at what we have now (most of which is terribly out-dated and not state-of-the-art) and figure we have come a long way. 

I am just relieved that people don't snicker loudly enough that we hear them.   

 I like the internal frame packs, but I can see why other's like the external ones. The little pockets for storing items that get swallowed in a single Duluth style pack is a nice convenience.

 I have put add on side pockets to both my main pack and food pack.
I carry my stove fuel in them, ( no fuel leaks in main bag worries) and any other item that I might need in a hurry/emergency. They hold a surprising amount of stuff, and attach too any pack that has dual side compression straps.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

 They don't seem too snag up on portages/bushwhacks as the main pack is narrower than my profile anyway. Same in canoe, they don't hang-up with their rounded profile.

db, I thought I was a minimalist! That sitting on the pack is a great idea. After dumping the tent contents in. Gotta try that.

Tim af

once your out there you will see that this question is meaningless. The journey is the destination. The sooner you abandon a watch the better time you will have on the trip. If it is any comfort, in the summer you can paddle to 9:30 pm or so.

Kick back and enjoy!

Dead_Dog_Paddler wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:

The only time I wear a watch is on vacation because it is THE most valuable time I have to spend. It's in short supply and it's value increases every year.

One of the nice thing about a GPS is it gives you data.  Here are some examples.  The 164 rod from Crooked to Argo took us 150 minutes.  This was our first day out, the third portage of the day, and we were exhausted.  There were four of us, 2 men and 2 women, out-of-shape, and two of us with bad knees.  A group passed us on that portage (3 people in one canoe) and they easily did the portage in half the time. We were double portaging and our canoes were an 18' aluminum battleship and an 18 kevlar.  The next day, we did the 126 rod portage from argo to darky in 80 minutes.

I have only timed one portage. The portage from Trousers Lake to Cache Lake took us from about 8:00 am till 9:00 pm. It was quite an experience. I agree that time in not that important. We have found and setup camp in the dark many times.