UL, just a phase?

[Another Kevin]

and yes, you might end up with two packs -- one for summer use and one for winter use. that level of specialization makes sense to most for their sleeping bag rating and their clothing -- a summer bag, and a winter bag, a down jacket and a wind shirt... I would argue it makes sense for packs, too.

Definitely! Particularly since there's not nearly as much need for all the spots to lash gear onto a summer pack. In winter, I may be toting an extra sleeping pad, snowshoes, crampon bag, ice axe (or poles if I'm using the axe), snow shovel, white gas bottle, and Finagle knows what-all else, all on the outside of the pack (because the winter bag, puffy, fleece pants, the other sleeping pad, and other bulky items leave no room inside).

[Aaron l]

A UL pack is a different beast from a conventional pack. It has limits.
After some maximum weight, belt no longer supports the wt on the hips, the pack doesnt prevent torso length collapse and wt transfer to the shoulders.
Figure about 5 lb less than what a UL pack mfg claims. They are giving the upper limit, seriously the UPPER limit, of what that pack can handle reasonably comfortably.

Conventional packs dont have quite the issues. Most of them are good for 50 lbs. They are not always good for 80-100, but some special better packs are.

The thing is , if you will never carry more than 30 lbs, you DONT need an overbuilt heavier pack that is designed to.

As far as frameless goes, you can effectively use sleeping pads as support to prevent torso collapse up to about 20. After that, well any comfort" is really all a state of mind. To prevent torso collapse you have to pack the pack tight, and it becomes misshapen and uncomfortable to carry. Frameless packs should be soft and conform to your back. The overriding issue of wt on shoulders is that there are nerves that run thru our traps (pressure point, pinch it and it will put you on your knees), and weight on these, more than ~15 lbs becomes very uncomfortable after a short while, or with repeated bouncing .

Ok that makes some sense, very well explained

[greentick]

My circa 2007 ULA Circuit overloaded with about 45lbs for a 2 nighter with 2 of my kids

022.jpg

[Just Bill]

There's some basic design principals behind the premise. It's not really marketing, unless you want to call designing a pack to meet the customer's needs marketing. It's not ALL about selling you more than one pack, although the average REI customer is likely to shop that way.

Generally speaking-(like your not a masochist or one of the best sport climbers in the world)

A frameless "rucksack" style with no hipbelt. Rucksacks are square shaped and centuries old. Modern packs are all more or less based upon Jardine's basic tube or stuff sack with shoulder straps. Good to 15-20 lbs.

A frameless pack with hipbelt- 20-25lbs.

A frameless pack with hipbelt, some kind of foam/framesheet- 30lbs.

A single stay internal frame pack will generally take you to 35lbs in a pinch, but basically the single stay replaces rolling up a foam pad to make a frame.

Internal frame packs- Jump you from 35 and up to Tipi Walter levels of heroic hauling.

Quasi Internal frame packs- cleverly disguised external or "full frame" packs- 45+ pounds

External frame packs- as mentioned by Mags and others- though out of fashion currently- the standard for millennia is some flavor of an external frame pack. From the simple triangle lash wood frame to modern carbon fiber ones you can get anything from a sub one pounder to 100+ pound hunter's game haulers or military gear ups.

What I find interesting is that some of the more trendy outdoorsman of the 1900's era were staunch Super Ultra lighters. A modern hiker would be hard pressed to beat Nessmuk's 25 pound kit, which included a 12' canoe, paddle, axe, and gun. Generally they used a frameless rucksack or wooden framed external when they were "heavy haulin". They frequently bushwhacked, and managed to do it without 400d packcloth or modern synthetics.

If you want one pack to do everything, and know how to use it- an external frame pack with some options is the clear winner.
If you only take one type of trip, of a relatively fixed duration and season- any pack could be your "one" based upon your preferences.

As Laz, Garlic, and Another Kevin voiced: eventually, be it seasonal, duration, or purpose of the trip- you'll probably find more than one a very solid investment.

The nicest thing about many UL minded packs is that they can be had relatively cheaply, even more-so if you make your own.

Open minds lead to open lands...

[kayak karl]

i have a golite pinnacle and it carries 30 lb OK. at 35 lb it is uncomfortable. digs into shoulders and won't keep it's shape. i don't know what golite claimed, these are just my observations.

[Wolf - 23000]

I've been asking the same question for years. 25 years ago, I was consider UL carry a base-weight of less than 5 pounds. Now when gear is “lighter” and 25 years later, UL starts at less than 10 pounds???

When I asked backpacking manufactures how they can label backpacks that were 2+ pounds as “UL”. Never really did get a good answer.
Now everyone calls themselves UL. It’s just a phase.

Wolf

[Wyoming]

And last but not least.

One of the main specifications that determines the load recommendation is not how comfortable a pack is at a specific weight as that is such an individual preference. It is what the pack materials and construction methods will reliably carry before failure. Many of the UL packs if used 5-10 lbs over their max load recommendation will fall apart quickly. Straps tear loose from the bag, hip belts come loose, etc. UL bags are light because they are lightly built. One may personally find a 2.5lb UL pack comfortable (sort of) with a 40lb load but it is going to destroy the bag if you carry that much in it often.

UL makes a lot of sense to a certain extent, but it can drift into stupid lite at times also. Extreme UL is no different than any other aspect of hiking or sports which are carried to an extreme. Meaning that the extremes may make sense to its acolytes, but many of those extremes do not help the regular hiker and often do them harm or spoil their enjoyment of what they are trying to do. Sit down and read through 50 hiking journals and you can spot a couple of dozen instances of it right away.

[Aaron l]

There's some basic design principals behind the premise. It's not really marketing, unless you want to call designing a pack to meet the customer's needs marketing. It's not ALL about selling you more than one pack, although the average REI customer is likely to shop that way.

Generally speaking-(like your not a masochist or one of the best sport climbers in the world)

A frameless "rucksack" style with no hipbelt. Rucksacks are square shaped and centuries old. Modern packs are all more or less based upon Jardine's basic tube or stuff sack with shoulder straps. Good to 15-20 lbs.

A frameless pack with hipbelt- 20-25lbs.

A frameless pack with hipbelt, some kind of foam/framesheet- 30lbs.

A single stay internal frame pack will generally take you to 35lbs in a pinch, but basically the single stay replaces rolling up a foam pad to make a frame.

Internal frame packs- Jump you from 35 and up to Tipi Walter levels of heroic hauling.

Quasi Internal frame packs- cleverly disguised external or "full frame" packs- 45+ pounds

External frame packs- as mentioned by Mags and others- though out of fashion currently- the standard for millennia is some flavor of an external frame pack. From the simple triangle lash wood frame to modern carbon fiber ones you can get anything from a sub one pounder to 100+ pound hunter's game haulers or military gear ups.

What I find interesting is that some of the more trendy outdoorsman of the 1900's era were staunch Super Ultra lighters. A modern hiker would be hard pressed to beat Nessmuk's 25 pound kit, which included a 12' canoe, paddle, axe, and gun. Generally they used a frameless rucksack or wooden framed external when they were "heavy haulin". They frequently bushwhacked, and managed to do it without 400d packcloth or modern synthetics.

If you want one pack to do everything, and know how to use it- an external frame pack with some options is the clear winner.
If you only take one type of trip, of a relatively fixed duration and season- any pack could be your "one" based upon your preferences.

As Laz, Garlic, and Another Kevin voiced: eventually, be it seasonal, duration, or purpose of the trip- you'll probably find more than one a very solid investment.

The nicest thing about many UL minded packs is that they can be had relatively cheaply, even more-so if you make your own.

Open minds lead to open lands...

You make some great points, the more hiking becomes a sport I can see how specific packs for specific situations can really dial in the comfort. In the other hand though Do you think that ounce counting is just one way to make backpacking competitive, a way to outgas your buddies. I see this all the time in the cycling and golfing world, people will spend almost any amount of money to gain what they think is some kind of competitive edge. For example, I'd love to have a set of blade clubs with lower lofts specifically for windy rainy conditions on the course, it would be quite intimidating to the other drunk hacks if I rolled up with multiple sets of clubs, and this mental state might drive me to beat my friends but eventually my skill catches up to my ego and no matter how many clubs I have I still can't break 90.

[bigcranky]

I've been asking the same question for years. 25 years ago, I was consider UL carry a base-weight of less than 5 pounds.

Twenty five years ago, the average empty pack weighed five pounds (or more - sometimes way more), and a hiker with a sub-20 base weight was considered foolish and possibly suicidal.

Over the course of a decade or so, the "ultralight" movement coalesced around 10 pounds as the magic base weight number. Kind of random, but there it is. Wolf, you've been freakishly ultralight for a long time...

[Franco]

I was thinking along the same lines as bigcrancky.
There are a lot more people using now what used to be called UL gear 15 years ago, it is called LW now...
The other day I spotted a comment from someone returning to hiking after a long time, he asked for an Ultra Light 2 person tent, less than 4 lbs...

[bigcranky]

The other day I spotted a comment from someone returning to hiking after a long time, he asked for an Ultra Light 2 person tent, less than 4 lbs...

Yeah, our lighter 2-person tent is about 21 ounces and the heavy one is 2.5 pounds. Ain't technology grand!

[Wolf - 23000]

Twenty five years ago, the average empty pack weighed five pounds (or more - sometimes way more), and a hiker with a sub-20 base weight was considered foolish and possibly suicidal.

Over the course of a decade or so, the "ultralight" movement coalesced around 10 pounds as the magic base weight number. Kind of random, but there it is. Wolf, you've been freakishly ultralight for a long time...

Well who is the suicidal one? The guy carry a nice easy to manageable UL backpack who barely notice he has a pack on, or the hikers who is trying to kill themselves lunging about a huge pack up and down mountains for several thousands of miles?

The phase UL has really been deluded. By today’s standards even Ray Jardine would be consider UL. We all know he carries to much.

Wolf

[Wolf - 23000]

I was thinking along the same lines as bigcrancky.
There are a lot more people using now what used to be called UL gear 15 years ago, it is called LW now...
The other day I spotted a comment from someone returning to hiking after a long time, he asked for an Ultra Light 2 person tent, less than 4 lbs...

I'm going to disagree with that big time. By todays standards, it seems like everyone is UL. It is to easy. UL use to be light enough were you did not even notice you had a pack on. Now, you figure 10 pounds gear plus food + water, your going to still know you have a pack on.

Wolf

[Franco]

Well, you can call it whatever you like but when I bought a Sierra Designs ClipFlashlight 2 about 15 years ago, that , 4.4 lbs, it was called Ultra Light.
That of course it does not mean it was , however the term was somewhat correct at the time given that most 2 person tents were 6lbs and over.

[Wolf - 23000]

Well, you can call it whatever you like but when I bought a Sierra Designs ClipFlashlight 2 about 15 years ago, that , 4.4 lbs, it was called Ultra Light.
That of course it does not mean it was , however the term was somewhat correct at the time given that most 2 person tents were 6lbs and over.

Fanco,

The Sierra Designs ClipFlashlight weight was 3 lb 14 oz. The Sierra Designs ClipFlashlight Magic was the UL back then at 2 lb 14 oz.

Most backpacking tents were under 4 pounds. Few backpackers back 15 years ago or 25 years ago were carrying tents that were 6 pounds.

Wolf

[MuddyWaters]

Most companies that used to market really lightweight stuff, gradually beefed up products and weight with more durable materials and features.

There is more $ in selling gear to many heavy hikers who want to be "ultralight", than by selling real ultralight gear to the few who go that route.

Even zpacks is now succumbing to this. As their business exploded over the last few years and they are now known by even never-ever hiking newbies, they changed the door design on the shelters, adding weight. Why.....well more sales of course, a more palatable shelter, especially for the overweight guy that couldnt crawl under the beak and complains. Not that they dont continue to strive for light wts or anything, but it happens. $$ talks, people listen.

Its sort of humorous when you see people wanting to know if they can cram 15 lb basewt in a frameless pack because they only need 2-3 days food. Or someone with a 18lb basewt carrying Cuben shelter and 18 oz quilt and complaining about them. Neither has the right mindset for UL items. Its really a mindset, you have it, or you dont, imo.

[Tipi Walter]

Everyone knows the hardest piece of gear to buy is the Backpack as it is used on your back everyday and must carry weight. No backpack can be adequately tested at the backpacking store and certainly not online.

There is the common myth that the external frame pack will haul the most weight in a comfortable manner but this is not true. Every external I tried with 80+ lbs ended up either killing my hips or sagging and pulling down on my shoulders. So, externals are not the best choice for big loads. The big load hauling internals work much better---such as Mystery Ranch and the old Dana Designs.

My perennial question is this---Let's say you have a 10 lb winter kit with a nifty UL pack, but you want to stay out for 21 days with a 40 lb food load. What pack would you use for these 50 lbs? And would you still be considered ultralight?

And to MuddyWaters about Zpacks---I was backpacking the BMT recently and ran into Hikerboy who was also thruhiking and heading north. He showed me his almost new Zpacks backpack with the carbon fiber frame and I noticed it was already broken and had repair tape holding it together. Point is, I've used big cordura packs for 40 years carrying 75 lb loads and never in that time had a pack frame bust or a major malfunction. Is there an inherent tendency for UL gear to fail early or more often? Probably.

[MuddyWaters]

There is the common myth that the external frame pack will haul the most weight in a comfortable manner but this is not true. Every external I tried with 80+ lbs ended up either killing my hips or sagging and pulling down on my shoulders. So, externals are not the best choice for big loads. The big load hauling internals work much better---such as Mystery Ranch and the old Dana Designs.

My perennial question is this---Let's say you have a 10 lb winter kit with a nifty UL pack, but you want to stay out for 21 days with a 40 lb food load. What pack would you use for these 50 lbs? And would you still be considered ultralight?

And to MuddyWaters about Zpacks---I was backpacking the BMT recently and ran into Hikerboy who was also thruhiking and heading north. He showed me his almost new Zpacks backpack with the carbon fiber frame and I noticed it was already broken and had repair tape holding it together. Point is, I've used big cordura packs for 40 years carrying 75 lb loads and never in that time had a pack frame bust or a major malfunction. Is there an inherent tendency for UL gear to fail early or more often? Probably.

There are compromises when you use gear that is just ADEQUATE for the intended use, as compared to gear that is OVERBUILT for the intended use.
You dont expect some UL gear to last as long. Especially not when used without care.

Zpacks Arc is truly a great pack for carrying up to 25 lbs at only 16oz wt, and water resistant (I have one). It has same UL compromises. The stays will rub holes in cuben fabric. Its not indestructible. It is only claimed to last a thruhike (~2500 miles I guess?) with care. Prorate total failure over 2500 miles, and you should expect minor wear and tear over several hundred miles. I have about 500 miles on mine, the only problems have been wearing pinholes thru the cuben both from outside by the stays, and inside by hard items.
But what it does oh so well, is carry that 15-25 range is blissful comfort, totally off the shoulders. And in doing this, it keeps the wt off your back with its design, which means you dont have to have CCF to cushion your back.

This is where we are today with lightweight materials. We have materials that can allow you to have a complete kit at UL weights that doesnt compromise comforts, but does sacrifice durability. This is a tradeoff that most experienced people are aware of, but a lot of newbies arent

Some years ago, to have an ultralight kit, you had more durable materials, but gave up some comforts. (frameless sack, small sil tarp, no bug net. Thin foam torso pad, etc.)

I meet people on trails all the time that buy UL items because of what they read, and then really dont treat them right and complain when they fail, or clearly show ignorance in other ways. Seeing people sitting on xlites or exped ul7s on bare shelter floors.....eeek. Then they complain it leaked.

To answer the question posed, Ultralight applies to your total gear weight, nothing else. Not total pack weight with food and water, but that obviously must be planned in gear choices. It is a characterization of the quantity and types of gear you have to carry to meet that classification. Most winter kits do not, it is almost purely a 3-season type thing. If you want to carry 40lb food comfortably, you will need a heavy pack obviously, that will take up most of your gear weight. So its highly unlikely you could be ultralight in warm weather even. Somewhere around 10-12 days food is probably max for UL kits in warm weather, typically 30-35 lb total is the upper limit weight that is tolerable for a short time (couple days) When you begin making yourself uncomfortable for a high percentage of time, you are better off with a heavier pack.

[Tipi Walter]

Good points. The leaky pad problem is laughable when I see how people are throwing them on the ground for sit-pads by a fire or strapping them exposed on the outside of their packs. And durability for me is more important than weight, within reason. Can't afford a failure in the field etc.

[Wolf - 23000]

Its sort of humorous when you see people wanting to know if they can cram 15 lb basewt in a frameless pack because they only need 2-3 days food. Or someone with a 18lb basewt carrying Cuben shelter and 18 oz quilt and complaining about them. Neither has the right mindset for UL items. Its really a mindset, you have it, or you dont, imo.

MuddyWaters,

You are right. Some of the way hikers attempt to go UL is humorous! A large part of going UL is mindset but it is skills to be in-tune with nature. Knowing what to look for and what can be done to resolve the problem.

Wolf