View Full Version : How Much Per Pound Are You Willing to Spend to Lighten Your Load
I am at the point where the cost to decrease my pack weight is getting higher. I can loose 5 lbs off my pack with if I spend $1,300. I am having a hard time justifying spending that much money to go from 16 to 11 lbs base weight, also I would have to change to a quilt and tarp w/ bug net. Would you spend the money to drop the weight? (I know this is all personal opinion just curious what others think.)
NOPE! not for 5 pounds.
RUNT ''13''
SteelCut
11-11-2014, 08:51
I've been having this same conversation with myself. I'm at 15lbs base weight but do have a few luxuries. At this point, I think I'm looking more towards what can I do without and thus I can reduce base weight at zero cost.
If I were about to go on a thru-hike, absolutely! If I just dayhike or do short backpacking trips, no way.
How is the money to be spent? Will you be buying all new gear, the big four (pack, bag, shelter, pad) and other items?
You'd be saving the weight how?
colorado_rob
11-11-2014, 09:23
I use a rule-of-thumb for new purchases of $100 for 8 ounces ($200/lb).... sort-of.
But really, it depends on how serious you are about this little "hobby" (long-distance hiking) of ours. If you are very serious, meaning you've done it and like it and want to do more and it is essentially a lifestyle (like it is for my wife and myself), then I really believe cost is no object for the best gear.
I can think of an excellent big-4 kit for well less than $1300, like the following:
MHW phantom 32 sleeping bag, 1lb 6 ounces, $303: http://www.campsaver.com/phantom-32-sleeping-bag-800-down
Zpacks Hexamid solo-plus tent w/ extended beak and full bug net, with Gossamer gear polycro ground sheet, total 1 pound even, just over $400. (don't buy that $90 cuben ground sheet, this polycro thing works nearly as well, is lighter and is only $12 for two of them).
ULA OHM 2.0 pack, 1# 11 oz (with extra junk removed), $200.
JetBoil Sol Ti stove, most efficient thing out there, about $120-160 depending on if on sale
Just over a grand total, you big-four weighs in at 4 pounds 10 ounces. Great start to a 10-11 pound base weight.
soulrebel
11-11-2014, 09:44
It depends on how often you go and if you're currently comfortable with your gear for the seasons you have selected.
I have spent the money on lighter and smaller gear for bicycle touring. But when I go hiking, I prefer larger sleeping pad, roomier shelter, and more knickknacks in general.
I've also found that if you invest that money into some new shoes and training equipment at home and force yourself to go on a ruck or lift whenever you think of pack weight, you eventually won't care what the pack weighs. GL
I for one, am guilty of spending the big bucks to lose the last few ounces. Part of me says that's really dumb, yet I have the funds to do it.
I will say this though, I am now light enough that I can detect a difference in my pack with every swig of water I take. This 69 year old body can walk 20 MPD through the southern Appalachians.
Will the money sent enhance your experience? My guess is; No. Unless that 5 lbs is preventing you from accomplishing something, spend the $$$ on a trip or experience.
colorado_rob
11-11-2014, 10:21
I for one, am guilty of spending the big bucks to lose the last few ounces. Part of me says that's really dumb, yet I have the funds to do it.
I will say this though, I am now light enough that I can detect a difference in my pack with every swig of water I take. This 69 year old body can walk 20 MPD through the southern Appalachians.This!
Pack weight is immensely important to enjoyment of this fantastic past time, even for young folks. So is quality of gear. Thankfully, then you do spend the big $$$, you generally get both (light weight and quality).
When you can strut for weeks/months on a long trail and basically not even notice your pack (well, except right after a 6-day resupply, perhaps), this is my definition of Nirvana.
You can spend $400 on a serious down bag, and only save a few ounces (eg. over a Campmor). Is it worth it? Yeah, if you want a serious down bag that should last a lifetime.
swisscross
11-11-2014, 10:44
I would try to find a happy medium.
Spend as much as you feel comfortable with and shoot for around 13lbs base weight.
Upgrade the rest over time.
At 16lbs base weight you will be lighter than most people on any trail.
Replace your gear as things wear out or a particular item really suits your fancy. There's no reason to dump all that money at once. If you are in a position to need a new sleeping bag, buy the one that you like the most. A year from now if you want a different pack, shelter, etc., you can choose that item the same way. If you really love getting out in the woods, you'll continue updating and revising your kit for years. There's no rush to have it perfect immediately. Your wants, needs, and budget will continue to evolve (as will the items that are on the market).
Starchild
11-11-2014, 10:51
It depends on many things, including finances.
But I feel the factor to look at is what type of hiking you want to do.
For a thru - that seems to make sense as the cost is spread out over the entire journey, and you might buy those items along the way to lighten your load, better do that now before the trail. Also since in general there is no set distance per day a lighter pack equates to more miles, so a advantage.
For other types of hiking, it is not as clear. A short trip (week/weekend trip), your distance per day will be planned to some extent and that based on the load you will carry, so the advantage while there is not as great. Hiking with others, unless they are UL there is little reason to be UL as it will just mean you will be waiting for them - this gets old fast. For base camp set up/peak bagging, where you hike into a area, set up camp and do day trips from there returning to base camp you may not want top of the line gear to sit unattended in the woods while you are doing your day hike, and can afford luxury items with this type of hiking.
Slo-go'en
11-11-2014, 11:05
Only in backpacking does less costs more.
I've done the math myself a number of times and keep saying no, it's not worth it. At least not all at once. I take an incremental approach, upgrading as I need to replace something or buying one new piece of major gear a year for the new season.
This year I really should buy a new pack. But I really don't like the choices. The one I do like is a pound heavier then what I have now. I may just try and get another 500+ miles out of what I got. I can sew the hip belt back on one more time :)
Five Tango
11-11-2014, 11:08
If you have health issues and want to go but are limited by weight,then it would easily be worth it.If you want to do it and can afford it,it would be worth it.If you cannot afford it you could cancel some other expenditure like taking somebody to the beach when you didn't particularly want to go anyway!
If I were about to go on a thru-hike, absolutely! If I just dayhike or do short backpacking trips, no way.
This is my answer as well. One other consideration..... I switched out much of my gear during my UL transition. I ended up selling or using the gear as spare gear for the kids, so it wasn't all throwaway.
garlic08
11-11-2014, 11:25
Some excellent point have already been made, asking about how often you'll use the stuff and how it will enhance your trip. I like to think of a "dollars per day" figure when I make a major gear purchase. My last tent and sleeping bag were both in the "dimes per night" range before I retired them.
Going lighter has actually saved me money. With the exception of the sleeping bag, most of the lighter stuff I've bought has been cheaper than the heavier stuff it replaced (my Tarptent was $200, my Gossamer Gear pack $80, a Z-rest pad $20, my homemade silnylon rain gear, soda can stove, razor blade knife, etc.) My entire AT kit weighed under ten pounds and cost about $850 (including clothing worn) and was good for camping in the low teens. I found my Marmot Helium bag on sale for $260, too, and that's good for many, many years of comfortable camping.
Most of my serious pack weight loss came from simply leaving things behind, and that was better than free.
The lightest and cheapest items are those which you do not have
But as far as getting lightweight versions of the big 3, it doesn't have to be that expensive. Most people would say that ZPacks is really expensive, but you can get your big 3 under 3 pounds (we're talking SUL weights here!) without sacrificing a closed shelter or durable pack all from ZPacks for $841 as follows:
ZPacks Hexamid Solo w/ screen // $295 // 10 oz
plastic window wrap (polycryo) groundsheet // $8 // 2 oz
8 stakes // $18 // 1.6 oz
ZPacks Zero small w/ hybrid material and 2 side pockets and center pocket // $150 // 7.5 oz
ZPacks Solo Sleeping Bag 30 deg medium length regular width // $370 // 14.0 oz
I just did this math, so here goes:
Previous set-up: 3.5 pound Pack, 4 pound bag, 2 lb pad. (I already have a 2ish pound tent, BA Fly Creek, so I wasn't changing that, yet)
Spent $800 getting to: 1 pound pack (Arc Blast), 1 pound bag (20* Zpack 900), 1/2 pound pad (Neoair).
The spreadsheet says I saved 7 pounds which works out to $114 per pound.
Was it worth it?
Well, a couple of things: 1) I'm at a point in my life where I can spend that sort of money on a hobby and not freak my wife out (too much), 2) It's cheaper than getting knee surgery. I really need to get down to a sub-20 pound all-in weight for 3-4 days on the trail to spare my knees some of the torture (I have an ancient knee injury with two surgeries behind me and is likely heading for a replacement a few years down the road) and I've already gram weenied my way on the other items. Without changing the bigger items I had no hope.
I'll let you know after next season whether the benefit was really worth it, but I'm believe if I can get a base weight in the neighborhood of 10-15 pounds, I'm going to be able to enjoy this sport a whole lot more and I'm going to be able to do it for years to come.
Also, I can't stress enough the "leave things behind" notion. Every time I get my pack ready for a hike, I then unpack everything into a box and repack it with fierce consideration of every element before it goes back in the pack. I always find a few things to leave behind.
When I did my AT thru I developed a spreadsheet with weight and cost of all my gear. In preparation for my LT thru I evaluated the spreadsheet and looked at where I could trim some ounces. I decided it wasn't worth $400-$500 for a cuben fiber shelter and only shave off 8 oz. For the same money I was able to cut 2 pounds by switching to a lighter pack, jacket, and rain coat. I was able to cut my base from 16 pounds to 11 pounds by switching to some lighter weight gear or by eliminating it completely, eg. stove and pot. I went stoveless. I cut five pounds for under $500.
colorado_rob
11-11-2014, 12:51
An obvious thought occurs to me... this is a bit of a catch-22 for those less experienced; they really don't know if they will like this most-excellent past-time, and the only way to find out of course is to try it. so they try it. But most are reluctant to spend big $$$ on UL gear until they try backpacking, so they buy (or borrow) cheap, heavy stuff and try it that way and because of their pack weight, the experience is less than pleasant. It really is a tough situation for newbies, no good answer, other than once you hike a long hike with a UL pack you'll understand.
(BTW: I'm not calling the OP a newbie, just expressing a general thought)
Replace your gear as things wear out or a particular item really suits your fancy. There's no reason to dump all that money at once. If you are in a position to need a new sleeping bag, buy the one that you like the most. A year from now if you want a different pack, shelter, etc., you can choose that item the same way. If you really love getting out in the woods, you'll continue updating and revising your kit for years. There's no rush to have it perfect immediately. Your wants, needs, and budget will continue to evolve (as will the items that are on the market).This is what I've been doing. As your gear wears out, replace it with lighter stuff. No need to go out and spend a huge pile of money all at once. If you are like most people and start out carrying 40+ pounds you can get rid of a lot of weight by simply taking stuff out of your pack that you don't really need. Even if you are only able to get your base weight down to 20 pounds that is a pretty light load on a weekend trip where 80% of your food weight will be gone by the time you leave camp in the morning.
For Me absolutly but i also do a lot of hiking, it would be worth it to me to spend a little more on gear that would last a thru and beyond but what i have found you don't have to ruptor your bank account to go lighter. Like look in to Gossemer Gear their Mariposa Back pack is $209.00, i just got a feathered friends sleeping bag that should last me for years, do a little bit of research you will find you can go lighter without spending a bundle.
An obvious thought occurs to me... this is a bit of a catch-22 for those less experienced; they really don't know if they will like this most-excellent past-time, and the only way to find out of course is to try it. so they try it. But most are reluctant to spend big $$$ on UL gear until they try backpacking, so they buy (or borrow) cheap, heavy stuff and try it that way and because of their pack weight, the experience is less than pleasant. It really is a tough situation for newbies, no good answer, other than once you hike a long hike with a UL pack you'll understand.
(BTW: I'm not calling the OP a newbie, just expressing a general thought)
That is why there is such a robust used UL gear market.
The one item I would not stint on is to buy the best sleeping bag/quilt you can afford. A good quality bag or quilt will last for many years and miles. I still have my Feathered Friends bag that I used from 1997 - 2009. A good wash, and it still a very good bag.
OTOH, if you are on a budget, still buy the best you can afford. Will a Cosmic Down be as good as my FF bag? Probably not. But it is still better than an el cheapo synthetic and is a good budget item.
Otherwise the adage of "you get what you pay for" is not necessarily true with other backpacking gear. If you are sub-10lbs in BPW, the type of pack you use is usually less money then a pack needed for 20+ lbs BPW.
An obvious thought occurs to me... this is a bit of a catch-22 for those less experienced; they really don't know if they will like this most-excellent past-time, and the only way to find out of course is to try it. so they try it. But most are reluctant to spend big $$$ on UL gear until they try backpacking, so they buy (or borrow) cheap, heavy stuff and try it that way and because of their pack weight, the experience is less than pleasant. It really is a tough situation for newbies, no good answer, other than once you hike a long hike with a UL pack you'll understand.
Absolutely. I think more than a few people were turned off to backpacking because they bought less $$$, but heavier, gear. Doesn't have to be that way. The workhorse ULA Circuit is less money and lighter than something at REI and can haul a decent amount of weight comfortably, but well...that's another thread. :)
There is a BIG ingrained deeply rooted misconception in that philosophy! It's stated in the title you chose for your thread- "How Much Per Pound Are You Willing to Spend to Lighten Your Load." Lightening the weight you carry is not just about lightening the wt of your gear although that idea is quite common. Nor is it necessarily just about spending great sums of money! Of course, in part, this depends on where you're at in reducing the wt you carry.
It's my best guess that if you can still stand to lose 5 lbs from a current 16 lb base wt, which if my math is correct, is about a 30% base wt decrease, than you're somewhat of a neophyte at reducing the wt you carry. If I'm correct, than it is also my best guess that you haven't dialed down the wt of your trail food and water carrying logistics. Repeatedly, I witness hikers discussing gear wt proud of their latest expensive wee bit lighter wt purchases, doing without rain wear drenched and shivering, getting raw skin on their feet because carrying an extra pr of dry socks is too much wt to carry, cutting down toothbrushes/waistbelt webbing straps, etc yet hauling unnecessary food and water wt. Throwing money at a goal doesn't always make fully achieving the goal a reality.
Let me offer a potential financially workable and perhaps overall better wt saving approach. Incrementally reduce the wt you carry by attacking it NOT just from a gear perspective. It can cause issues currently unforeseen if you focus your efforts entirely or primarily on gear. If you do, it can result in you spending MUCH more than $1300. Add to your UL skill set by intelligently reducing your consumable and water logistical wt, which can FAR OUTWEIGH the wt savings of any one piece of high priced itsy bitsy latest greatest most UL gear wt savings, perhaps even surpassing the wt savings of your entire lighter wt Big 3 kit pieces you are considering. As you add knowledge and trail wisdom, and as your current heavier gear pieces are retired after their useful lives, incrementally add new lighter wt pieces into your kit. It spreads the UL higher priced kit purchases out and will be more agreeable with a growing wt saving/UL skill set. Additionally, it will likely allow for a more integrated kit you uniquely arrive at.
Don't rule out DIY gear which can really help you customize gear and certainly reduce the financial burden. DIY projects will also add to hands on gear knowledge quite likely serving the purpose of reducing pricey purchases of UL gear that don't fulfill your perceived expectations. By the looks of how much NEW and slightly used high priced latest greatest wee bit lighter UL gear I see for personal resale at various websites this is certainly occurring. Colorado Rob and Malto said this too. Use that in your favor though. Strongly consider buying used yet in good condition UL gear. It can save money!
Don't rule out bridging gear pieces either. It's like a bridge loan which is a short term temporary loan that gets a company to the next stage. Getting to that perceived UL Nirvana kit by bridging those incremental stages with used gear purchases can save money in the short and long term being commensurate with your overall knowledge and hiking style. Again, these purchases help save money. It's my illusion you'll likely be doing that anyway as you head further along down the UL highway.
The one item I would not stint on is to buy the best sleeping bag/quilt you can afford. A good quality bag or quilt will last for many years and miles. I still have my Feathered Friends bag that I used from 1997 - 2009. A good wash, and it still a very good bag.
OTOH, if you are on a budget, still buy the best you can afford. Will a Cosmic Down be as good as my FF bag? Probably not. But it is still better than an el cheapo synthetic and is a good budget item.
100% agreed. While tons of backpacking gear choices don't directly relate cost to quality, it can be very visible in sleeping bags. I bought a Feathered Friends bag around 2000 that still looks brand new, and a Western Mountaineering 3 season bag in 2008 (used) that continues to keep me warm below it's original rating. There are some value brands out there that give you excellent bang for the buck, but it requires carefully examining the product and reading reviews. We were able to pick up a Big Agnes 0* bag and pad a few years ago for my wife for $160. It's certainly not the quality of my FF bag, but it's goose down, insulates well, and seems built to last. Not bad for a third of the price.
For the super nitty, check out Erik the Black's Gear Planner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zYKrDnoqf4U
To download the planner, click here (Excel) (http://blackwoodspress.com/blog/files/gearplanner2/Gear-Planner-V2-Final.xls)
Another great site for planning out your gear is at Geargrams (www.geargrams.com).
Here's an example from my BMT trip:
http://www.geargrams.com/list?id=18159
Odd Man Out
11-11-2014, 15:00
I don't do the calculation in $/oz or anything like that. I make a list of the gear I want (for any reason, not just cutting weight). Then I prioritize (from want the most to want the least). Then I buy the thing on the top of the list. If I think that is more than I want to spend, I buy the next thing on the list. Then repeat until everything on the list is more than I want to spend at that time, and I am now officially happy with what I have.
I would ask how well is your current gear performing? Does it handle the conditions where / when you are hiking. I am guilty of spending to save weight. It really helps when you are on a trail where it is 5 / 6 days between resupply.
I am at the point where the cost to decrease my pack weight is getting higher. I can loose 5 lbs off my pack with if I spend $1,300. I am having a hard time justifying spending that much money to go from 16 to 11 lbs base weight, also I would have to change to a quilt and tarp w/ bug net. Would you spend the money to drop the weight? (I know this is all personal opinion just curious what others think.)
Are you getting all new gear? I carry 12# base weight and have less than that in my whole system. Now if you need everything maybe. But odds are you can sub a few items and not spend that much.
I spent money on the big three and pieced together the rest.
MuddyWaters
11-11-2014, 21:16
Unless your wt is under 10 lbs, you can shed 5 lbs for much less.
garlic08
11-12-2014, 09:11
Unless your wt is under 10 lbs, you can shed 5 lbs for much less.
I didn't realize it's a non-linear function, but that sounds absolutely right. If you're starting with 35 pounds, loosing five is probably free.
LOL good one
I didn't realize it's a non-linear function, but that sounds absolutely right. If you're starting with 35 pounds, loosing five is probably free.
When I look at potential gear swaps, I do pay attention to cost per ounce of weight savings, but I also like to get some other quality as well. For example, I am planning to replace my Thermarest Prolite (16 ounces) with a NeoAir XLite (12 ounces). I will save four ounces and will pay around $120, which is a relatively expensive $30/ounce. However, in addition to the weight savings, I hope to have a more comfortable sleep quality from the swap. In addition, the R value of the XLite is 3.2 vs 2.2 for the Prolite so in theory it should be warmer.
The other gear swap I'm currently considering, but haven't committed to, is the ZPacks 20 degree sleeping bag/quilt. The model I would buy is $430 and I would save around 16 ounces compared to my current bag, so that works out to around $27/ounce. Not cheap. However, I am hoping that a slimmer fitting bag will result in a bag that performs closer to its temperature rating than my current bag which is simply too big for my body type and quite inefficient.
As others have pointed out, many times cutting weight can be done cheaply. One example is that I now use a REI snow stake as a trowel. It cost something like $2.50 and weighs an ounce. Much cheaper than any "proper" trowel.
I have tended to carry too much water weight. As Dogwood pointed out, making this type of mistake has the potential to more than outweigh the carefully selected low base weight. So, if I go ahead with the expensive sleeping bag swap, I could potentially completely negate this savings by carrying just HALF A LITER of excess water! That's a sobering thought and makes me want to figure out ways to better dial in my consumables on future hikes. The issue is that my overall risk aversion leads me to carry excess water many times. This is only NOT true on trails that I've personally hiked in the past and am totally familiar with water sources. I need to learn to have more trust in water reports and be willing to run the risk of finding a dry source - in cases where not life threatening, I think that I could stand to be less risk averse and be more aggressive with carrying less water than I currently carry.
It's worth mentioning that there may be other places to save weight as well. Most of us (perhaps you're not included, but I certainly am) can lose a fair amount of personal weight before we start negatively impacting our athletic ability. Costs nothing, gets the load off your joints, reduces the amount of calories you'll need to carry (because you expend less energy), etc.
rocketsocks
11-12-2014, 11:34
How much are you willing to pay per lb.to save weight?
...about $20 bucks per lb.
if the tenderloin and mig-nin is lookin' good and da marblization is distributed reyzationaly, $40 bones for a two pound steak reduction is well worth my time to carry.
Let me try this again. We often go to extremes. Sometimes unnecessarily so and being unwarranted, doing so imprudently, which can lead to the potential for wasting of resources, and creating and contributing to other unforeseen issues. We can easily unwisely focus solely on superlatives often with blinders on behaving like run away freight trains. It can happen when those seeking to reduce the wt they carry focus solely on the most extreme lightest wt gear. It's happening on this thread! Who's to judge someone else's readiness for perhaps the most extreme lightest wt gear? The goal is to reduce the wt we carry as backpackers which DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN we individually have to OR SHOULD maximize the reduction in wt savings and likely not attempting to do so in one giant final leap. I believe it to be a huge misconception, with not only wt saving backpacking neophytes but also with some devotees in the UL community, that each one of us, everyone at all times under all situations, should maximize their reduction in wt carried by opting for the lightest wt gear available or lightest wt possible kit. It's so easy to get caught up in that UL whirlwind or merry-go-round especially when so many are urging us to or creating an atmosphere where it is assumed all seeking to reduce the wt they carry or who are ULers do that. It is not a tenet of UL philosophy or for those seeking to reducing the wt they carry that they must take that approach. I see several potential pitfalls, some of which I made myself, attempting to do this. I believe the pitfalls are magnified FOR MANY, especially wt saving beginners, when they attempt to maximize their wt reduction in one giant leap. For many, going lighter winds up not occurring in one giant final leap anyhow. It's often a road a journey done in stages in increments where each of us takes it as far as individually desired. We don't get to Mt Katahdin in one giant step when thru-hiking either but it seems as that's what some have as their over eager mindset. AGAIN, going lighter is more than gear, and certainly, we should make room for reducing to lighter wt gear in increments by considering gear options that ARE NOT ALWAYS the most extreme lightest wt gear! Certainly, we can have the foresight to judiciously consider where we uniquely individually are as backpackers and include other light wt gear options commensurate with where we are. Gear wt does not exist in and of itself, and surely, by considering other factors and priorities associated with gear choices, some of us would be better served. It certainly looks that way when I see so much of the same itsy bitsy minimalist perhaps lightest wt gear options routinely for resale!
Pack weight only matters to those who can't handle the extra weight.
If I had a 16 lb pack, I wouldn't spend $100 to reduce an already light pack by 5 lbs.
I carry a 27-32 lb pack routinely (food, water, etc). I barely notice it there. I can do 16-19 mile days.
Although I am currently finding it difficult to increase my mpd passed 20 and although I am sure I could if I had a 20 lb pack, I will get to that just by increasing my fitness. I don't need to spend thousands to do it.
I can't imagine how much you already spent to get a 16 lb pack weight.
Absolutely no. Never. Ever.
SteelCut
11-12-2014, 15:45
^^^ Some of us aren't 29 years old anymore :)
Spent $207 to lose 9 oz. :(
$23 per oz.
Started with 47" Alps pad about 25 oz
Loved this pad
http://www.amazon.com/ALPS-Mountaineering-Lightweight-Series-Self-Inflating/dp/B001LF3FR8/ref=pd_sim_sg_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0DE3JK0RHDQ7A7VQZDT1
Bought Neo Air 47" pad 8 oz - $100
Slept "on" (but mostly half off)
about 30-35 days
and eventually hated it.
Sold short Neo Air + $35
shipping - $12
Bought xl and x-wide
Neo Air 16 oz - $130
I'm conflicted,
but my dh LOVES it.
DeerPath
11-12-2014, 16:25
I have spent and average $305.55 per pound to get to 16 lbs plus food & water.
rocketsocks
11-12-2014, 17:42
I rather like my 22 ta 27 pound tree seasom base weight, think i'll stay wit dat for a whilde.
rocketsocks
11-12-2014, 17:44
Beats the stuffin outa da 80's acarriments.
dangerdave
11-12-2014, 19:15
Fifty-one year olds unite!
Heavy packs and old age ain't for sissies! I can see why you young folks can't deal with it, and why the old folks give up on it.
I'm going to invent a pack with gas bladders filled with helium for the real whinnies. Then, I'll sell franchises for helium distribution along all the long trails in the country. I'm gonna be rich! :)
^^^ Some of us aren't 29 years old anymore :)
Sorry for the kinda harsh tone. I just started backpacking this year and when I was buying my gear I got so much hmmm. . . let's kindly call it "help" from ultralight backpackers. It started to rub me the wrong way. Now every time I hear about pack weight or the "ultralighters" point of view, i get a little angry.
Does a light pack make hiking easier? Yes.
Do you sacrifice comfort? Well, not necessarily, but you will sacrifice comfort and/or money. At least one of those is guaranteed. "Go ultralight" enough, you sacrifice both.
Do hikers "have" to go ultralight? No, piss on that. Just because you want (and in some people's cases need) to go ultralight does not mean I need to. I am actually adding more weight to my pack.
So long as my pack is comfortable and everything I need fits into it (now that is in fact important to me), I could really care less about its weight.
In my apology, I ranted some more.
I apologize for my apology.
MuddyWaters
11-12-2014, 21:49
Let's see, I paid about $220 extra for a bearcan that saved 10 oz, that's $352/lb. About $300 for a pack that saved 17 oz, thats a little less. $475 for a quilt/hood that saved 12 oz over a bag (but also more versatile), that's $633/lb. Don't even want to talk about shelters.
But at the end of it, carrying 6 lb base WITHOUT SACRIFICING anything, and walking 25 mpd, its worth it. Of course, every item has other benefits. Smaller, good resale , less condensation, flexibility, etc. What else you going to spend money on besides something you enjoy?
SteelCut
11-12-2014, 21:59
Sorry for the kinda harsh tone.
<snip>
In my apology, I ranted some more.
I apologize for my apology.
Hey AO2134, I was not offended by your original post. I was just jokingly pointing out the enthusiasm of your youth !
For me at my age I do, however, put a premium on a lighter pack as long as I don't sacrifice my desired level of comfort and safety. But ultimately it's all about HYOH whether you want to be UL'er or carry a 50 pound pack like the previous generations of thru-hikers before UL became fashionable.
Cheers.
squeezebox
11-13-2014, 00:35
Depends a lot on your income & discretionary funds you have. If $1300 is a weeks income, fine you can afford. If it's a months salary maybe not.
Also what kind of fixed expenses do you have? mortgage, car payments, kid's expenses, etc.
Knowledge and experience weigh nothing. The more one knows and the more experience one has, the less gadgets one needs. Most extra weight isnt from the big 3 or 4, it is from all the extra gadgets which people erroneously say "weighs nothing". Those are the ounces which add up very quickly.
colorado_rob
11-13-2014, 09:24
Let's see, I paid about $220 extra for a bearcan that saved 10 oz, that's $352/lb. About $300 for a pack that saved 17 oz, thats a little less. $475 for a quilt/hood that saved 12 oz over a bag (but also more versatile), that's $633/lb. Don't even want to talk about shelters.
But at the end of it, carrying 6 lb base WITHOUT SACRIFICING anything, and walking 25 mpd, its worth it. Of course, every item has other benefits. Smaller, good resale , less condensation, flexibility, etc. What else you going to spend money on besides something you enjoy?Very well said, and funny, I've been eyeballing that damn Berikade for a while... might pull the trigger when we re-do the JMT....
Bottom line is that it's really quite simple... Cheap, Functional, Light. Choose two!
Here's our gear room... Not a comprehensive shot, little items in cabinets on left, and it doesn't show our 10 sleeping bags and a bunch of other packs
MuddyWaters
11-13-2014, 22:16
Should be mentioned that if you buy light the first time, the incremental isn't much, in some cases its less. Really can't neglect selling other gear to finance upgrades either.
At $10.00 or less per ounce it's no question, do it, if above $10.00 to $17.00 I think about it then most likely go for it and above that I think even harder and walk away, far away. But that's just me
At $10.00 or less per ounce it's no question, do it, if above $10.00 to $17.00 I think about it then most likely go for it and above that I think even harder and walk away, far away. But that's just me
Ouch! I've spent $100/oz. but I still found that it's worth it once I start hiking.
Once you have gear and have to do the cost per ounce math to justify upgrades, the value proposition gets difficult to justify. So I think that buying the lightest gear possible the first time around makes quite a bit of sense, within limits, since as others have said, buying the absolute lightest gear in certain cases requires experience that might not exist for someone just getting into backpacking.
Looks like my Neoair arrives today (saves 4 ounces at $100 which isn't cheap) but I'm counting on a better night's sleep in addition to the four ounces. If it provides that, then well worth it since I'll be using it around 120-150 times over the next year!
FlyPaper
11-14-2014, 11:22
Whenever I think of reducing pack weight and start thinking about the cost,
I generally start thinking of reducing the amount of cellulite I'm carrying. When I think
of spending $1300 to save 5 pounds, I find myself a little more motivated to eliminate
5 pounds of belly fat.
Pack weight only matters to those who can't handle the extra weight.
If I had a 16 lb pack, I wouldn't spend $100 to reduce an already light pack by 5 lbs.
I carry a 27-32 lb pack routinely (food, water, etc). I barely notice it there. I can do 16-19 mile days.
Although I am currently finding it difficult to increase my mpd passed 20 and although I am sure I could if I had a 20 lb pack, I will get to that just by increasing my fitness. I don't need to spend thousands to do it.
I can't imagine how much you already spent to get a 16 lb pack weight.
Absolutely no. Never. Ever.