Backpack weight

[58starter]

If we do a little math here we will see that if you are 120 lbs it makes sense to carry a total of 18 lbs.
If you weight 225 then you should be able to carry around 33lbs. Yes, that is 15% of your body weight.
I never want to be cold or hungry because I do not have a tent, or stove, or enough food.

[Kurt Simmons]

My Gregory Baltoro 65 feels the same on my back empty as it does with 25 lbs in it. If I thought I would ever need a 65L pack again I would keep it.

[TOMP]

If you weight 225 then you should be able to carry around 33lbs. Yes, that is 15% of your body weight.
.

15 percent? I always went by the no more than 30 percent rule. Is 15 the new UL adapted version?

[JAK]

You should have done what I did.
I started with a 7 pound pack. lol

[JAK]

It's easier to carry an extra 25 pounds when 175 pounds than when 225 pounds.
So you have to judge things as a percentage of your lean body weight.

I use a golight Jam2 now, 20oz for a large, and I'm very happy with it. $100.
I won't replace it now, but the ULA packs look like very good packs also.

[skinewmexico]

15 percent? I always went by the no more than 30 percent rule. Is 15 the new UL adapted version?

The number I've always heard for Boy Scouts is 20%. I don't know that UL has anything to do with it, but 30% of the average persons body weight is rarely fun. I'd rather burn that testosterone showing off for cheerleaders.

And no, I wouldn't spend $220 to save a pound, unless I had already saved it on the other parts of my Big 4, and my body.

[TOMP]

My point I guess with the pecentages is that if you weigh 120 lbs, your probably not gonna be able to eat if you can only bring 18 lbs or it breaks down to 10 lbs food/water so what you got 8 lbs gear?

[skinewmexico]

My point I guess with the pecentages is that if you weigh 120 lbs, your probably not gonna be able to eat if you can only bring 18 lbs or it breaks down to 10 lbs food/water so what you got 8 lbs gear?

But 36# (30%) is an enormous load for someone who weighs 120#. Using 20% or 24# is pretty doable with today's gear, and you don't even have to get crazy on the UL gear. Well, you would have to buy smart. On the plus side, someone that light should (probably) have a smaller, lighter sleeping bag and pad, and need less food. They'd probably be able to get by with 1# of food per day, which could make for a fairly long, unsupported trip.

[JAK]

Heavier packs generally cost more, not less.
UL, done right, should be both cheaper and lighter.

[JAK]

30% is for people with 10% body fat. 20% is for people with more than 20% body fat.
Still doesn't make sense unless it is as a percentage of lean body weight, and seasonally dependant.

I pack about 10 pounds in summer, 20 in spring/fall, and 30 in winter. Lean body weight is 150 pounds.

[JAK]

I think the 30% number originates with outfitters wanting to sell stuff, and consumers wanting to buy stuff.
This is why people call it backpacking rather than hiking. Hiking is about the hike. Backpacking is about stuff.

Buy less stuff. Carry less stuff.

[garlic08]

Heavier packs generally cost more, not less.
UL, done right, should be both cheaper and lighter.

Thank you for saying that!!! My UL pack cost $80, my Tarptent Contrail was $200, my pad was $20, my stove was free.

The exception is the sleeping bag. That can be pricey, but then you have an excellent bag.

[TOMP]

But 36# (30%) is an enormous load for someone who weighs 120#. Using 20% or 24# is pretty doable with today's gear, and you don't even have to get crazy on the UL gear. Well, you would have to buy smart. On the plus side, someone that light should (probably) have a smaller, lighter sleeping bag and pad, and need less food. They'd probably be able to get by with 1# of food per day, which could make for a fairly long, unsupported trip.

I didnt say bring 30 percent I said no more than 30 percent. I agree 24 lbs seem doable. I was just pointing out that 18lbs with 4 days of food is unrealistic.

[TOMP]

Heavier packs generally cost more, not less.
UL, done right, should be both cheaper and lighter.

I agree, now if we could just convince the cuben fiber people.

[JAK]

I agree with that. I would pay more for a better bag.

I got a good price on a 20oz fill 20oz shell 20degF Kelty Bag for $50, but its only 550 fill. Still a good price, and it fits great. For a thru-hike I would probably pay an extra $100 if it was 850 fill, which would be about half a pound lighter. Might not find one on sale for $150 though. When I have more money I might get a better winter bag, but for now I use either my 40oz 20F 550fill, or my 60oz 0F synthetic, or both as 20F bag actually fits inside the other rather well. Heavy but warm. Tested in backyard in -20F. Not ideal, and heavy, but workable.

[JAK]

I agree, now if we could just convince the cuben fiber people.

I think you and I have a different idea of 'done right' than some folks. i.e. diminishing returns

[JAK]

That said, I would go cuben for certain DIY projects, or if I were to try a cottage industry product. I figure if you are going to put the time in, or pay for some quality craftmanship, it doesn't hurt to spring a little for some cool materials.

Besides, I've tried the cigars, and their not bad.

[TOMP]

Yeah I think cuben fiber is worth its weight in gold, unfortunately that's still less than it retails for.

[swjohnsey]

Yeah I think cuben fiber is worth its weight in gold, unfortunately that's still less than it retails for.

But it is cool. I bought one of Zpacks little "wallets" for five bucks just to say I had somethin' out of cuben.

[Wise Old Owl]

http://sectionhiker.com/granite-gear...ckpack-review/

Found this review - might be helpful