I share the views voiced on here, and i take great delight in using minimalist kit when out on my own in fact often to the point of actually being foolhardy which gives me a big buzz and teaches me a lot.

However when i am on an organised event i feel i have a responsibility towards the organisers to comply with the rules regardless of whether or not i feel that they are all necessary.
This i hope then means that once everybody has set off the organisers can feel that they have done all the can to ensure folks safety and relax a little, after all not every body out there is going to be as experienced as some of the folk on here.

Particulary in view of the fact that the LDWA is hoping that the forums will attract new blood, that being the case folk will be hoping to learn from the forums and for a novice i would always say take full waterproof cover.

When i post on a forum i try not to direct that post at any one individual, i just give my viewpoint and try to expand the original subject matter, working on the assumption that the forum is being viewed by a wider audience than the half dozen or so that choose to post on here (wish there were more)some of which won`t have the experience that others have, therefore a lot of what i say may come over as standard, but then the same can be said of the advice you give a new comer when teaching them navigation for example.

Standard remarks i find can often be the basis for long meaningful discussion rather than a closure.

However i digress in short i still feel that to carry a little more kit than you would normally choose to do when on your own is not really a big issue you could even think off those few extra grammes as a form of resistance training, then when you shred the burden you will move so much quicker.


Sorry if i have waffled a bit but i think it makes sense.

John

This is where 'recommended' comes in, rather than 'compulsory'.

On the Round Rotherham, I would definitely have worn waterproof trousers if I had been walking. I am sure that those without them suffered the consequences and, from looking at the weather forecast, walkers would have been foolish not to carry them.
As it happened, I was fine in running tights, 2 tops (with dry change half-way) and waterproof/windproof smock, hat and gloves. But this is only because I prepared for the event properly by looking at the weather forecast and planning appropriately. It's called common sense and personal responsibility, which the nanny state seems to think we've all lost.

I take the view that if you don't take something and suffer the consequences then it's your own fault, you're an adult you only have yourself to blame, the organisers can't stop you from walking on public paths unless they have permission to use private paths, we know the risks , we have the choice

ha ha. I was waiting for the customary responses of 1 - you should be grateful there is a walk anyway and 2 - if you don't like it don't enter. I have heard these so many times before on the forum and I think it is a shame that things can't be discussed on this forum without these standard responses.

I for one are extremely grateful for those that give up there time to host these fantastic events, and I feel I do my part by entering early, supporting as many events as I can, often travelling miles to get there, and most importantly above all else, acting responsibly during the walk both reponsible for myself and for others, ensuring I have trained for the walk, and have the necessary kit to ensure I do not become a danger to myself or an inconvenience to others.

Things should be able to be discussed on the forum without items discussed being 'shut down', after all, 'if you don't like it don't enter' is hardly condusive to a good discussion, and is such a cliched response, and may even put less thick shinned members off commenting on a forum like this.

And yes, you may rummage through my rucksack as much as you wish, and you will find there enough kit to open my own outdoors shop, plus emergency blister kit. It is simply unnecessary items that I simply won't use adding to the weight of my already bulging sack.

Judging from my awful picture in strider where I look like I'm about to expire on the white cliffs, it looks like overheating is my biggest curse!!!

So come on - how about a discussion without getting angry, personal, or cliches? The LDWA is a fantastic organisation, it is very frustrating how so many fantastic walks are struggling for numbers and yet other events are oversubscribed. We should be very proud of our organisation and it is only through being open and bouncing ideas off one another that the LDWA will grow and florish.

I agree 100% with Steve if you don`t like the rules don`t enter.
For my part i am just grateful that there are folk prepared to give up there time and volunteer there services so that we can be part of an event, and if i want to do it then i am happy to comply with there rules whether or not i agree with them.

For me life is to short to start twinning and whinging on about whether or not i should burden myself with a few extra grammes in order to comply with the rules, after all should anybody come to grief on an event and are ultimately found to be ill equipped, then as likely as not the organiser will probably be held responsible for not stipulating full waterproof body cover for e.g. which could ultimately affect the long term future of the LDWA and how the events are organised and conducted.

In short a pair of WATERPROOF TROUSERS weighing a few grammes is a small price to pay for a good day out i IMHO.

All the best
John

rebecca to be blunt two things stand out here 1st if you dont like the kit list simple dont enter the event 2nd if i was a event organizer and you entered i would make sure at kit check you had to get everything out of your rucksack , and i would even check your waterproofs to make sure they where a full pair of trousers and that you had not turned them into shorts . just be brave like we all have to and carry the kit on the list if you agree with it or not

I bought a pair of £100 Paclite overtrousers for the Long Mynd Hike in 2005, on the basis that I had to carry them and they packed down into an apple-sized ball at the bottom of the rucksack. Despite it raining on the event, I didn't use them, and I hadn't used them up till this weekend. The prospect of getting soaked through and being out for another 10 hours or more made me decide to put them on soon after the rain set in on Saturday.

They were quite a snug fit, and it didn't help that I put them on back to front which meant that getting my leg over some stiles was a bit tricky (!), but I kept dry and warm all day, and after falling in the mud late on I was glad to have worn them. I agree that they might be a bit OTT as mandatory kit for the Holy Hobble, but I might be a little more inclined to wear them in future if it is wet and cold.

Agreed. Recommended is fine, compulsary should be dependant on the walk and the conditions likely to be faced. There are instances, especially with young people, or certain walks that you would perhaps need them, or if you were walking in a very remote area, I guess the fact that they are stated as compulsary (with a kit check) on this particular walk which is neither in a particularly remote area or likely to be dangerously cold, being July (unlike the welsh hills - I was also frozen up there!) and I know that they will be just placed in the bottom of my ruck sack to satisy the kit check.

I was very glad of my waterproof trousers on the second day of the Mid-Wales 100. However, going to the loo was somewhat of an ordeal as I ended up with 4 layers to remove and pull back on (pants, shorts, ron hills and waterproof trousers!). Due to my fuddled state, I didn't think to remove any of the under layers. Anyway, I was very warm, snug and dry, especially as my pace had slowed ridiculously.

I often wear waterproof trousers when leading groups of young people, because their pace is usually museum-like. And I always insist that they have them on day walks and expeditions. It's really a matter of risk assessment and pace.

As an adult who can usually think straight (I hope!), I look at the weather forecast and decide on what I will wear and carry based on that. Also I'm usually moving fast enough not to need waterproof trousers. However, organisers of events have a duty of care towards the entrants and should clearly recommend waterproof trousers, because of the unknowns about weather and people's pace. But it should only be a recommendation, not compulsory.

I agree too - in summer (or anything approximating to it) I prefer shorts, and when it's really wet & cold or snowy I wear the 'paramo' type trousers. In between I just use the quick-drying 'ron hill' type. However, I think the point of carrying the overtrousers is maybe to avert the onset of cold if you became injured or slowed down having already got wet? I carry a (£7.99) pair at the bottom of my pack, and have only ever used them on long events at night, and then really just as windproofs, but whilst checkpointing I have encountered a couple of runners who had become chilled, who didn't have any.

Agree with you, Rebecca. I've never packed waterproof trousers for standard (I was going to say bog standard) events because they are supremely uncomfortable to wear, they make a deeply irritating rustling noise and I never need them. No one's ever asked at a kit check if I've got them.

I don't want to bring up the subject of kit checks again but.......... why are waterproof trousers on the list of essential items for the holy hobble? I never ever wear them, I've climbed kilimanjaro, been fortunate enough to trek over mountains all over the world and have never used them as I hate them as they make me more wet with sweat and I start cooking, and chill down even quicker than if they were not worn. Quick drying running tights are my preferred option with a waterproof / windproof top.

It seems so silly that I am going to have to put my token pair of waterproof trousers, (only ever carried when there is a kit check) in my rucksack to lug around for 60m with no intention of using just because a kit check says I should have a pair.

I can understand this if the walk was in the highlands of scotland, or the remote welsh hills, but Northamptonshire in July????

If you must have kit checks, please can they reflect a degree of flexibility and take into consideration personal choice?