PDA

View Full Version : Pack wt. vs. skin out



squeezebox
02-10-2015, 00:55
I would like to see more skin out gear lists, after all 1lb. trail runner vs 3 lb real boots are a big difference. base layer, pants, fleece top, socks, puffy, icy foot gear can be pounds in cold weather. vs. undies shorts socks and maybe a T shirt in hot weather. Every month on the trail is different. And your total wt. changes. also some consumables like whiskey are not necessary and heavy It's not about bragging rights, it's about what is real.

Just Bill
02-10-2015, 01:20
People using trekking pole based shelters but not counting the trekking poles is my only pet peeve...
I agree though- FSO is a better way to evaluate your choices overall.
And whiskey isn't a consumable, it's a luxury item.
Unless you read Horace Kephart and follow his labelling advice, then you can count it in your first aid kit. ;)

MuddyWaters
02-10-2015, 08:13
I fail to understand the fascination with what anyone else carries, wears, or doesnt. The AT and other trails have been sucessfully hiked with all kinds of clothes and gear.

In addition to her shower curtain and tennis shoes, grandma gatewood wore dungarees. She lived to tell about it....imagine.

Most people place too much emphasis on gear, right down to brand of sock. All that has virtually nothing to do with success. Comfort, yes.

Starchild
02-10-2015, 08:45
Skin out weight is something that I have not used, so it is a bit foreign to me. It seems to make sense. The concept reminds me of some times when I was flying just with a carryon bag. To bring extra stuff I would wear extra clothing that I would have rather packed.

FWIW I do not like base weight calculations. I find them ultimately self defeating, meaning that the lower you get it on paper or spreadsheet past a certain point, you eventually end up packing more weight on the trail IRL.

It's a chase down a rabbit hole that eventually has one disconnect from the trail reality usually by choosing lighter base weight gear systems only to end up carrying more weight in consumables. Good intentions needed to keep pack weight down also easily go by the wayside for the sake of convenience when one is on trail and doesn't want to, or is too tired to fiddle.

My preferred method I call 'scale on trail', what is the actual weight you are lumping at a moment of trail life. What are you carrying at that moment, and is there a way to reduce it. And since it is not a competition, this one works well for me in reducing my weight I carry.


But all 3 methods (base weight, skin out, and scale on trail), all still miss something, extra weight carried inside the body. Methods like camel'ing up at water sources means less weight carried on paper but that weight of water is still being carried in the body.


People using trekking pole based shelters but not counting the trekking poles is my only pet peeve...

Why?

This should not matter IF treking poles are not commonly counted in base weight and they would be bringing them anyway. In other words are they using their treking poles as tent poles (does not count - unless treking poles are counted) or using their tent poles as treking poles (should count)?

It should also not matter unless it is a competition?

Traveler
02-10-2015, 08:51
I fail to understand the fascination with what anyone else carries, wears, or doesnt. The AT and other trails have been sucessfully hiked with all kinds of clothes and gear.

In addition to her shower curtain and tennis shoes, grandma gatewood wore dungarees.

Most people place too much emphasis on gear, right down to brand of sock. All that has virtually nothing to do with success.

To me, this is on par with car enthusiasts who compare whats under the hood or what tires they use in rain, or perhaps fly fishing enthusiasts who endlessly compare how to wind specific types of flies for various wind and humidity levels. None of these things in and of themselves will have virtually little to do with success, but contribute to it. Comparing things between people of like interests is part of the human condition and can be an important element to improving gear, safety, technique, and all sorts of things.

There are only a few general topic areas that are commonly discussed among deep enthusiasts of any activity, usually breaking down to four basic categories; Experiences, Techniques, Equipment, and Logistics.

I have to say, I have learned quite a bit about gear in an activity I felt I knew a lot about before coming here. I have heard of new gear developments I was not aware of in the cottage industry sector for example. That has caused me to take a closer look at the gear I have and as it rotates around to, or wears down to replacement I can make more informed choices based on use, weight, and need. Though I find little in common with those who strive for an 8 lb pack weight to move 32 miles per day, eating free range granola in wrappers that double as TP, I find a lot in common with the folks moving at 10 or so miles per day and am usually interested in the gear they carry. Its not an uncommon conversation on the trail to hear strangers spark up a conversation about gear, its usually a safe topic and is usually pursued with real interest.

Besides, if this were to disappear, what would we discuss? How to identify pigeon toed post holers conversations would only go so far outside those who routinely snowshoe :D

russb
02-10-2015, 10:42
For my own personal use, I use "max weight in pack". If something has the potential to be in my pack, I count it. This includes my consumables. Partly so I can decide which pack to use on the trip. I alsodo not put items in my pants pocket so as to not count them.

swisscross
02-10-2015, 10:48
Max weight and base weight makes sense.
Skin out bothers me not.

Why...well, I wear leather soled shoes, wool coat, wool slacks, leather belt, dress shirts to work every day.
My hiking wear is substantially lighter in every regard.

Frye
02-10-2015, 11:17
I would like to see more skin out gear lists, after all 1lb. trail runner vs 3 lb real boots are a big difference. base layer, pants, fleece top, socks, puffy, icy foot gear can be pounds in cold weather. vs. undies shorts socks and maybe a T shirt in hot weather. Every month on the trail is different. And your total wt. changes. also some consumables like whiskey are not necessary and heavy It's not about bragging rights, it's about what is real.

I couldn't agree more. I've been guilty though of getting stuck purely on base weight. I suppose it's part of progression. Right now I'm trying to safely reduce the weight of my consumables. Everything else is pretty dialed in.


To me, this is on par with car enthusiasts who compare whats under the hood or what tires they use in rain, or perhaps fly fishing enthusiasts who endlessly compare how to wind specific types of flies for various wind and humidity levels. None of these things in and of themselves will have virtually little to do with success, but contribute to it. Comparing things between people of like interests is part of the human condition and can be an important element to improving gear, safety, technique, and all sorts of things.

You're a wise man. Very well said.

It's a hobby, we like discussing our hobby. I do understand how some folks might find it odd, I'm sure it's much the same feeling I get when friends start discussing the next big foodie thing, or latest IPA to trend. It doesn't mean I wish they would stop, I just don't get it.

Just Bill
02-10-2015, 12:33
HYOH, YMMV, blah, blah, blah.

If you don't care about your pack weight, then don't care about others. :D

Packweight is an evolution.
You start with base weights, get that down, and get some miles in.
To me, backpacking is a system; everything you carry is part of that system so it makes sense at some point to look at everything as a whole.
Eventually you like what you do, what you carry, and you're happy.
You can get off at any stop along the line, or even develop a few different styles for different trips.
There is no perfect kit.

Backpacking is unique in that we modern humans get to gather up some stuff and set off with it. We each have different goals and styles to accomplish in that effort. But at the end of the day; we start in our birthday suit and equip ourselves from there.

FSO comes from Colin Fletcher (1968); I found the concept eye opening in looking "beyond the backpack" at what I choose to equip myself and how it can all work together. If you follow that path a bit, you may find some pretty neat things can be done when you look at the whole system, rather than individual components.

Horace Kephart was the first (in 190?) to publish another eye opening fact- "a pound on the feet is like five on the back". For any person traveling distances through the woods this should be a general piece of warning that might make you want to look a bit harder at everything you bring. You may look a bit harder and say, "Meh.. I'm good" but it's worth a look.

From skin out does two important things IMO-

A- Stops you from lying to yourself.
FSO prevents the silly "spreadsheet magic" that many detractors look down upon. If you think of your stuff as one big pile, it's a bit hard to argue that your pint of whiskey stored in grandpappy's steel flask is a consumable for instance. Or that the flask won't weigh a pound even when empty. Or that your fifty function swiss army knife doesn't weigh anything because you carry it in your pocket.

That's not to say that a flask of hooch and a nice knife don't belong in the woods, only that if you slapped it all on the scale you may choose something else. Or more accurately, if you were careful about everything you NEED to carry, you don't have to concern yourself much with what you WANT to carry.

How many folks pop on here and say- "I got my base weight down to XX pounds but when I weighed it at the trailhead It was XX!!!! What the hell happened?"

"Scale on trail" is a wake up call that raises a question. FSO is an answer to that question.

B- It makes you happier.
When you work out the need and want thing, get a bit ruthless in the effort, a neat thing happens; you got plenty of room and spare weight to carry extras.

Bringing a pair of down booties to wear at camp is a SUL no-no. Same with a heavy Randall knife, extra pot to boil snow, WPB shell, a quart of whiskey and a few other odds and ends. But I tossed all those things into my pack for the Harriman trip without a second thought knowing I cut my weight down everywhere else already and I'd be on a trip where sitting around the fire bull****ting is more fun with a decent knife, warm drink, toasty feet and a flask to pass.

Every hiker you will ever meet, regardless of pack weight will tell you how heavy their pack feels going outta town, and how sweet it feels going into town. From Tipi Walter to Malto, we all say the same thing. So if we're all so much happier when our 2lbs per day of food is used up, aren't we all just as happy when we trim 2lbs off our feet permanently?

All the "advanced" hikers say something similar when they reach the end of their evolution as a backpacker. "I don't pay attention to my weight any more." Which sounds nice, but we should all remember that getting to that statement is a trail in and of itself that many are still walking.

But once you're there and you've put in the effort, regardless of where your Katahdin is, you're happier for the journey.

If you don't want to put any effort in, or don't care. Then don't. HYOH.
But please don't put your spare effort into bashing those who wish to make the effort.




Why?

This should not matter IF treking poles are not commonly counted in base weight and they would be bringing them anyway. In other words are they using their treking poles as tent poles (does not count - unless treking poles are counted) or using their tent poles as treking poles (should count)?

It should also not matter unless it is a competition?

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/107331-Walking-Faster-aka-Speed-Walking

This is a question for part A and my opinions on trekking poles are in this thread.
Don't lie to yourself.

1- Do you actually need poles?
2- Do you want poles?

If both questions are yes, then it makes good sense to look at shelters that work in harmony with what you already carry.
If 1 is no, and 2 is yes or maybe- perhaps best to consider your choices.

If you evaluate a trekking pole shelter AND include the weight/cost (as well as potential for failures) your shelter choice may not make as much sense. You may even find that you are happier with say, a freestanding UL dome when you realize that it doesn't weigh or cost any more if you simply compare your shelters "From ground out"

Two things to think about-
1- If you are choosing a shelter because you carry a trekking pole- you are evaluating your system from a FSO perspective- even if you don't know it. You are seeing your stuff as a pile of stuff that works together. Congrats!

2- If FSO weight doesn't matter, then why do all you stick swinging ninnies spend so much time, debate and money finding the lightest, bestest trekking poles? It's not your base weight, it's not a consumable, it's not added to the "Scale at trail"... So why aren't you just picking up a stick off the ground for free if trekking poles "don't count"?

Connie
02-10-2015, 12:50
I pick up brand name and product information from lists. I google it.

If I relied on only products I see at REI I wouldn't hike as much. I would be camping.

There is no other way I would know about any alternatives, or, exceptional quality or exceptionally useful gear without looking at gear lists.

The Big Four, right here at White Blaze put the emphasis for reduction of weight carried where it belongs. These items have been and still are most commonly the heaviest.

Here are my "skin out" SUL, UL and LW (3-season) "working lists"

SUL
http://www.geargrams.com/list?id=22143

UL
http://www.geargrams.com/list?id=22144

LW (3-season)
http://www.geargrams.com/list?id=22273

Frye
02-10-2015, 13:00
How many folks pop on here and say- "I got my base weight down to XX pounds but when I weighed it at the trailhead It was XX!!!! What the hell happened?"

I dunno why, but that makes me want to use roman numerals for everything.

Great post btw, I couldn't agree more.

Cotton Terry
02-10-2015, 13:49
I dunno why, but that makes me want to use roman numerals for everything.


You're in luck. Super Bowl L is next year.

Wülfgang
02-10-2015, 13:57
I agree with muddywaters; talking about gear weight in detail is on par with any other hobby where people get into the minutiae more out of enjoyment rather than to debate what actually makes a significant difference. Has anyone hung out with a serious fly fisherman recently??? They take it to a whole new level.

As far as skin-out weight, I personally don't use it and think it's a bit unnecessary, but to each his own. The way I see it the stuff you are wearing doesn't usually change dramatically; but your pack contents can.

AO2134
02-10-2015, 14:32
Skin out weight seems so silly to me. I don't really care about pack weight, but I get it. I get why people fixate on it, but skin out weight? Are you kidding me? I don't know how it works, but tell me in skin out weight do you subtract the average weight of your normal every day clothes (assuming you don't walk around naked every day)? Because otherwise, it makes even less sense to ever take into consideration skin out weight.

Connie
02-10-2015, 14:47
These lists helped me more than I expected: I am getting it together fr the (PNT) Pacific Northwest Trail I have already hiked in part.

What has been really appalling is what I thought was lightweight. I have left out gear I have used for years and years. It is heavy compared to this stuff I have listed. The stuff I have listed isn't the most lightweight and strong gear and clothing available, either.

I still have more gear choices, but only little stuff. I may "go for" something different the bigger stuff.

The point is: it helps to weigh each item.

howlinmadman
02-10-2015, 18:55
I don't really get the skin out weight either. I understand the concept, but to me I will be wearing something no matter what I'm doing hiking, working, etc. This may be the wrong way to look at it but the stuff I have in my pockets doesn't change whether I'm hiking or not. I work off of a base weight to get everything dialed in, but I like Starchilds "scale on trail" approach. I do this before leaving the house once everything is loaded including food water and any luxuries I may bring. I weigh myself on the scale with what I will wear and what I will have on me- pocket knife, phone, I.D., maps, then I put the pack on and see what the difference is. To me this is what I am truly carrying!

Sarcasm the elf
02-10-2015, 19:30
I fail to understand the fascination with what anyone else carries, wears, or doesnt. The AT and other trails have been sucessfully hiked with all kinds of clothes and gear.

In addition to her shower curtain and tennis shoes, grandma gatewood wore dungarees. She lived to tell about it....imagine.

Most people place too much emphasis on gear, right down to brand of sock. All that has virtually nothing to do with success. Comfort, yes.

Your post reminds me of Ty Webb


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1M_8ByLMJQ&sns=em

:D

Connie
02-10-2015, 19:44
Didn't I read at White Blaze forum "Grandma Gatewood" begged food and lodging the entire distance?

If true, how is that an example of having adequate gear for the AT?

fastfoxengineering
02-10-2015, 19:52
The whole definition of baseweight is pretty solidly defined, however, go look at twenty different "ultralight" gear lists and you'll find some people are "cheating" or not counting every gram.

It's kind of ridiculous how people stress too much about it, however, they are certainly merits in weighing everything in your pack to see where you can go lighter.

For instance, I was looking at my gear grams the other day, and a full set of aquamira weighs about 3.1oz. Every gear list you see, most people have it listed at 3.1oz. But isn't the liquid consumable? And therefore, only the weight of the bottles would be considered in your baseweight. There's 2oz of weight savings right there on your baseweight on paper.

... wait a second, wouldn't that apply to toothpaste. Don't count the paste, but count the weight of the tube!

After all, consumables are not suppose to be calculated into baseeweight correct?

I just don't get to wrapped up into what my full pack weighs on paper. But I do analyze the weight of individual items in my pack. It still gives me a lighter pack in the long run.

And I think i've seen some people not count luxury items in their baseweight.. to me, that makes no sense. it's in your pack for the long haul, right?

skin out weight? I really don't even know what that entails. Because I wear a neck knife, it's not included in my base weight, but it is on my skin out weight?


I say just weigh your gear, and learn about that individual item, then find the lightest solution to your meet your demands.


But hey, anyone wanna tell me why I can't say my aquamira weighs only 1.1oz for my baseweight, and not count the consumable 2oz of liquid! To be honest, imo, it's a more accurate representation of one's baseweight

MuddyWaters
02-10-2015, 22:54
I care about my baseweight, and my total weight.

I dont care about anyone elses. I hope nobody else cares about mine, or whether Im properly accounting for the map in my pocket, or the weight of my empty chapstick tube.(0.15 oz)

capehiker
02-11-2015, 00:00
I always count consumables. I look at my pack weight from what is the heaviest my pack will be at the beginning of my hike. Although, I will admit to not counting my hiking poles when I do pack weight. I do count it when I calculate skin out weight.

squeezebox
02-11-2015, 01:49
In support of skin out.
In summer you'll wear shorts and a T shirt, way under 1 lb.. In winter base layer close to 1 lb. pants and wind jacket 1 lb rain pants vs rain skirt 8oz. At least 2 lb. more clothing, probably 3. 3 lb boots vs 1 1/2 lb trail runners. And then you can get really stupid and claim the Rambo knife and hatchet attached to your belt is not in your pack, so they don't count as pack weight.
If it's on your body you are carrying it!!

squeezebox
02-11-2015, 02:12
And if I put my 6 lb. mega tent with loops on it's stuff sack on a sepperate belt around my waist well it's not in my pack so it doesn't count either???
My guess is that some folks, particularly the UL and SUL folks are not telling the truth about how much they are carrying. I noticed someone on geargrams who claimed her entire 1st aide kit was consumable so it did not count as pack wt. If you are carrying it it's weight.
I don't mean to come across as pissy.

Connie
02-11-2015, 07:37
I don't understand the container weight.

I did it, but really I am leaving the trailhead with the contents of the containers.

Starchild
02-11-2015, 08:44
Some fun with baseweights:

For Aqua Mira (or any such consumable), is it 1.1 oz or 3.1 oz for base weight? Well what are you planning to come back with? What portion of the product is actually intended as a consumable, and what is the intended amount to be hiked out perhaps to be used next time?

Someone mentioned toothpaste as a consumable, besides how much are you planning to pack out. Also take into account that many such products have additional product that is generally inaccessible and not intended to be used, just there due to the type of packaging. So some of that toothpaste in the tube goes to base weight.

And in total violation of LNT, some people buy cheap 'Wally World' gear with the intention of abandoning it along the way. As a former Rodge Runner I have packed out many such items, always cheap but very new gear. Not to say I approve, but how does that fit into base weight. Now the tent and sleeping bag is a consumable so does not count as base weight.

garlic08
02-11-2015, 09:20
Didn't I read at White Blaze forum "Grandma Gatewood" begged food and lodging the entire distance?

If true, how is that an example of having adequate gear for the AT?

Read "Grandma Gatewood's Walk" by Ben Montgomery. She did beg food and lodging much of the way. The trail culture would hardly tolerate that now, but she was in the first handful of people to ever thru hike the AT and she did it three times! (Well, once was a section hike.) It was a different time and trail back then, and she came from a background we have trouble imagining. She did truly walk the trail and probably saved it from obscurity, per the author. It's a good read.

1234
02-11-2015, 09:53
The whole base weight thing is just a way to lie. To trick yourself or others into thinking you are lightweight. My opinion for what it is worth is the only thing that matters is percent of your body weight. For a 100 lb person a 25 lb pack+ all you are wearingis 25%, for a 200 lb person a 25lb pack & all you are wearing is 12.5%. What all that weight is made up of is of no concern, if you walk up a 3,000 foot mountain it is what you are caring extra to just your body weight. Summer vs winter is a huge difference. Poor light weight folks have it the hardest, they will be carrying a higher % of body wt. just on account of they will need the same basic stuff, shelter, sleeping bag, pack. My extra large tall fleece weights in at 18 oz. just over a pound, I guess a extra small fleece weights half that.

CalebJ
02-11-2015, 09:56
The whole base weight thing is just a way to lie. To trick yourself or others into thinking you are lightweight. My opinion for what it is worth is the only thing that matters is percent of your body weight. For a 100 lb person a 25 lb pack+ all you are wearingis 25%, for a 200 lb person a 25lb pack & all you are wearing is 12.5%. What all that weight is made up of is of no concern, if you walk up a 3,000 foot mountain it is what you are caring extra to just your body weight. Summer vs winter is a huge difference. Poor light weight folks have it the hardest, they will be carrying a higher % of body wt. just on account of they will need the same basic stuff, shelter, sleeping bag, pack. My extra large tall fleece weights in at 18 oz. just over a pound, I guess a extra small fleece weights half that.
If you're going to look at it that way, it would help to consider an ideal weight rather than current body weight.

colorado_rob
02-11-2015, 10:19
The fantastic book "Lighten Up" first introduced me to such concepts, and sure, I'm nerdy with such things with my spreadsheets, etc... HYOH, right?

Anyway, another "in support of skin-out weight": There is a significant comfort difference between weight carried distributed all over your body vs. on your back in a pack.

I don't bother separating the small consumables like sunscreen, toothpaste, ibuprofen and other meds or Aqua Mira fluid, those are part of my "base". I don't even include stove fuel as a consumable; it's only 4 ounces max (the 3.5 ounce canister should be included in the base anyway).

But this "base weight" will always be important to me because overall weight is so vitally important to my hiking comfort. I guess I'm just not as tough as the UL nay-sayers on WB!

This "base weight" includes everything except the bare-minimum of clothing that I would wear on the warmest day hiking, my boots (shoes) & socks, and the one single trekking pole I use.

So, it's really simple for me (and all my hiking pals use this same simple system): Base weight = the max that will be in your pack except food and water. Skin-out includes warm-weather clothing (shirt, shorts, underwear, socks)/boots/pole. I generally keep my cell phone in my pants pocket so could remove from pack's base weight, but I do include it in base as it sometimes resides in my pack.

Not rocket science! But damn important to this wimp's hiking comfort to track this and keep down.

squeezebox
02-11-2015, 10:43
There are other catagories that could be used. Since you mentioned people of different sizes, a 5 ft. 200lb person is way different than someone 6'6" and the same wt.
some sort of body wt,/ pack wt. ratio.
or a body mass index/pack wt. ratio.
or max wt /total wt. that includes 5 days food and water for a dry-ish day. and your hiking poles
I can't my head around the idea that my alcohol container counts as wt. but the alcohol inside does not.
It seems like pack wt. means absolute minimum wt. If I hike naked, don't bring food,fuel,water, the cell phone in my pants pocket doesn't count, Oh I forgot I'm not wearing pants! We don't hike that way!!
Pack wt. is pretty much meaningless.
Total wt. that includes pack, clothing, poles, food water, ie. everything you are carrying would be much more accurate.

Just Bill
02-11-2015, 11:36
Oddly- FSO is the "simple" system, and closer to traditional packing. It's only been the last few decades as the quest for UL emerged. or more accurately, re-emerged. Nessmuk carried a 25lb load in the late 1800's, which included his canoe and paddle. Kephart also carried under 25lbs in the 1900's, and of course Native Scouts and primitive peoples have carried well under 10lbs of kit since we left the caves.

SIMPLE PACK SYSTEM-
Get a big cardboard box. Put everything you plan to bring in that box with the exception of food. That's it.
This is FSO- no base weight, no "false" consumables, no big three or four- just a big pile of stuff you plan to bring.
From boots to ball cap- if you are bringing it to the trail it goes in the box.
At some point it all ends up on your feet. Period. For most of us tired feet signal the end of our day.

Keep in mind though, that even Kephart and an Indian Scout paid close attention to their food and rations. Even then they recognized that provisions make up a large portion (by weight and volume) of the total load carried and carefully studied provisions as well.

So at this point a hiker goes on a trip, comes home and says one of three things-
"I'm happy with that stuff." And they are all done.
"That was pretty good, but I wish it was a bit better" And they tinker a little bit.
"I really want to explore in depth everything in that box." And they really geek out.

Note- weight is not mentioned- only a level of satisfaction-based upon your personal opinion only- with what you brought.
REALLY NOTE- the hiker goes on a trip! Theoretical lists are theories. Review of list post trip is something to talk about.

If you wish to change up your kit the easy spot to start is with the main stuff.
So the concept of the big three evolved(shelter, sleeping bag, pack), which morphed into the big four(add sleeping pad).
Take it a little further and you have your "base weight" to review.

Now mix in UL and SUL into the mix and the logical choice is to drill down everything that goes into the box.
This is modern FSO in my opinion- a careful review of everything you bring.

This review could be as gram weenie anal, or casual "hand scale" review as you like.
It may even have more to do with volume than weight, or happiness, or that it makes your photography or fishing hobby easier.

Modern folks are "baseweight" oriented, to be rude, most have glossed over the weight reduction and UL movement and picked this small piece of it to focus on, not understanding that weight is often secondary to a good kit.
Or perhaps more accurately, it's the first step- but not the whole trail. Get over base weight.

As a simple example- the Aquamira mentioned.

A traditional person buys it off the shelf, tosses it into the box and counts it as part of their kit. At best they may say- A PUR HIKER weighs 11 ounces, AM weighs 3 ounces, so I'll bring the AM.

A baseweighter says, I can carry a Sawyer or AM, the AM is lighter and works well on the trail I am visiting so I'll use it, maybe if I go somewhere else I will use the sawyer mini.

A spreadsheet magic hiker goes Ah-HA, A filter is a fixed item and goes in the spreadsheet as baseweight, but AM is a consumable so I won't count it and my baseweight is down!

A modern FSO person realizes they have to carry water treatment, and chooses AM because it fits their style and destination.
Then they look at the 3.1 ounce package it comes in.
Then they use it and see this bottle set is a two month supply.
Then they find tiny bottles and portion it into a week or so worth at a time.
Then they weigh the mixing cap, and see a micro bottle is lighter, so they discard the cap and bring that instead. Turns out the micro mix bottle also is easier to pour, and they don't have to worry about spilling or flipping the cap anymore. Or "guard it" at the shelter so nobody else bumps it. So they are also happier, and add convenience to their kit at the same time.

They then realize that they can mix a day's worth of product in the morning and carry it in their pocket. So instead of digging out the whole set at each stop they simply reach in their pocket, fill a bottle, put a few drops of the premix in and move on. Reducing the time it takes to treat water.

So now instead of a 3.1 ounce set of off the shelf components they don't like much, they carry a 1.0 ounce set of three micro bottles and one week of product they are super happy with.

They don't care about base weight, consumables, or other factors. They don't weigh the AM differently because part A&B goes in their ditty bag and the mix bottle goes in their pocket. They see that others leave the trailhead with 3.1 ounces, and they leave with 1. No spreadsheet magic or debate about it.

They care about reducing weight, bulk, volume, and increasing ease of use.
They care about what they need, and what they want.
Mainly so that they can enjoy their time on the trail and accomplish their goals.

Take it to an extreme- Matt Kirk realized he could treat AT water sources just fine with bleach, and maybe even a bit less bleach than recommended. So he reduced his set to one micro dropper bottle. Because piece count is something to consider as well if you want to talk efficiency, he went from three things to keep track of and pack to one. His goal was to be the fastest backpacker on the AT. Lightest, smallest, most efficient kit, etc. was not his goal, just steps along the way. Important, yes, but critical- no.

A fella with a pack, a trail to walk, and a goal to meet- nothing more, nothing less.

If there is a competition, it is with yourself.
If it's not with yourself, then you need to spend more time on the trail.

If there is frustration with "cheaters"- it is because some people do "cheat".
But mainly because developing a holistic kit FSO is difficult, hard to understand or teach, and is frustrating to duplicate.
It is also horribly personal, and truly- what works for one doesn't work for all.

Eventually it has nothing to do with putting a pile of stuff together, but filling your head with experience others can't provide.
Eventually you are on your own.

So when you set out to get your X lb kit on the trail and hit X+5 lb, you get frustrated.
Many other people were also frustrated, and simply gave up.
These people now bash or discourage anyone attempting to proceed where they have failed.
I think that's sad.

There is a certain wisdom in not getting bogged down- it really doesn't matter at all.
An extra 5lbs won't stop you from hiking, and the secret is only by hiking will you learn how to trim that last 5lbs.
I think this advice is sound, even if the delivery isn't always the best.

A sunrise is no more beautiful for Tipi Walter or Matt Kirk- they are both in the woods- just with different goals.
You'll never see a sunrise on your spreadsheet, nor store it as a consumable.
If you're stuck- take a walk, eventually it'll work itself out.

Don't let preparing for your hobby get in the way of your hobby- that tends to get folks frustrated and leads to them saying unkind things.:)

colorado_rob
02-11-2015, 11:40
...Pack wt. is pretty much meaningless...Interesting way of thinking; as a human being used to walking around clothed I'm very accustomed to what I carry around on my body (including my body) all day in normal life. But schlepping a pack around is kinda different from "normal" life, for me at least (even though I spend probably a third of my waking life with a pack on). So actual backpack weight, that extra I'm not quite accustomed to is vitally important to my hiking comfort. Silly me.

I've found certain total backpack weight cutoffs are very significant. For example, below 18 pounds or so (total) on my back, I hardly even notice that a pack is on (I'm at or below 18 total well over half the time in the summer). Up to about 25 pounds, the pack is still very comfortable, noticeable, but no actual discomfort (at 25 total or so right after a 6 day resupply). Starting in the high 20's and up, discomfort increases rapidly. 30 ain't bad, but 35 is starting to be annoying, 40 reeks, 50-60 and up is horrible to hike with. I started up my second Denali expedition with 95 total pounds. Yes, I went UL on that trip as well. UL, but damn heavy. Most others on the mountain were at 120-150 and above. (we all drag sleds, BTW, with roughly half our weight there)

This is just me, others claim they are "comfortable" with huge heavy packs. I believe they actually think this because they know nothing different.

If I'm wearing 2 pounds of clothing vs. 5 pounds of clothing, this difference is not noticeable at all. Of course it does make a difference in energy spent per mile hiked, especially if there is up/down involved (as is almost always the case), but I don't notice that I'm hiking slower carrying, say, 5 extra pounds of body weight or worn-clothing. For me, it's only backpack weight that adds to my discomfort.

5 extra pounds carried on my body subconsciously slows me down. 5 extra pounds on my back consciously adds to my discomfort (but probably slows me down about the same amount as 5 pounds on the body)

Since I like comfort, and apparently I'm not in a great majority, I keep track of my actual backpack weight. I do realize that not all hikers value hiking comfort. Sure saw a lot of uncomfortable hikers along the AT !!!

Wülfgang
02-11-2015, 11:47
The whole definition of baseweight is pretty solidly defined, however, go look at twenty different "ultralight" gear lists and you'll find some people are "cheating" or not counting every gram.

It's kind of ridiculous how people stress too much about it, however, they are certainly merits in weighing everything in your pack to see where you can go lighter.

For instance, I was looking at my gear grams the other day, and a full set of aquamira weighs about 3.1oz. Every gear list you see, most people have it listed at 3.1oz. But isn't the liquid consumable? And therefore, only the weight of the bottles would be considered in your baseweight. There's 2oz of weight savings right there on your baseweight on paper.

... wait a second, wouldn't that apply to toothpaste. Don't count the paste, but count the weight of the tube!

After all, consumables are not suppose to be calculated into baseeweight correct?

I just don't get to wrapped up into what my full pack weighs on paper. But I do analyze the weight of individual items in my pack. It still gives me a lighter pack in the long run.

And I think i've seen some people not count luxury items in their baseweight.. to me, that makes no sense. it's in your pack for the long haul, right?

skin out weight? I really don't even know what that entails. Because I wear a neck knife, it's not included in my base weight, but it is on my skin out weight?


I say just weigh your gear, and learn about that individual item, then find the lightest solution to your meet your demands.


But hey, anyone wanna tell me why I can't say my aquamira weighs only 1.1oz for my baseweight, and not count the consumable 2oz of liquid! To be honest, imo, it's a more accurate representation of one's baseweight


Yeah one can get realllllly nitpicky with weights; but in my observation it's usually not the folks who are doing the most hiking.

I think weighing each item in your pack is useful to see where you can trim weight or get rid of unnecessary items. I also think it's helpful, for me anyways, to weight my whole pack fully loaded before each trip. Sometimes spreadsheets don't match up to a locked-and-loaded pack.

And as far as consumables; basically anything I'm eating, drinking, or burning on a daily basis doesn't factor into my baseweight. Little things like toothpaste or aquamira or chapstick are technically consumable but they are so small it's a wash to me. Being a literal *gram* geek is more of an exercise in intellectual masturbation than pragmatism.

Big picture here. Keep it light, keep it useful, keep it efficient. Altogether makes hiking more fun.

fastfoxengineering
02-11-2015, 14:29
A modern FSO person realizes they have to carry water treatment, and chooses AM because it fits their style and destination.
Then they look at the 3.1 ounce package it comes in.
Then they use it and see this bottle set is a two month supply.
Then they find tiny bottles and portion it into a week or so worth at a time.
Then they weigh the mixing cap, and see a micro bottle is lighter, so they discard the cap and bring that instead. Turns out the micro mix bottle also is easier to pour, and they don't have to worry about spilling or flipping the cap anymore. Or "guard it" at the shelter so nobody else bumps it. So they are also happier, and add convenience to their kit at the same time.

They then realize that they can mix a day's worth of product in the morning and carry it in their pocket. So instead of digging out the whole set at each stop they simply reach in their pocket, fill a bottle, put a few drops of the premix in and move on. Reducing the time it takes to treat water.

So now instead of a 3.1 ounce set of off the shelf components they don't like much, they carry a 1.0 ounce set of three micro bottles and one week of product they are super happy with.


I agree with everything you said, I just want to put something else out there. Some of us build our packs/kit for thru-hiking, I do. Now I'm not always thru-hiking. Majority of the time, I'm doing overnights. And some trips require special gear. But I'm getting to that base 3 season equipment list of stuff that'll always be coming along. Certain items added but not removed for special circumstances. However, I don't repackage my AquaMira. Nothing wrong with it and a great way to shed some weight when only out for a week. I also don't only bring a nights worth of toothpaste if im only going out for an overnighter. I'll actually probably have a brand new travel sized toothpaste in my pack.

It's not that cutting weight for trips like that is wrong. I could prob save a few ounces in doing so. I, personally, wouldn't notice it though.

In the end my point is, SUL and UL's have these insane low base weights. But their system is fully tuned to the EXACT amount of supplies they need. It's how they shed that last half pound to get under that really low base weight. They only carry, for example, three brushings worth of toothpaste. Because that's how many times they are planning to brush their teeth. They only bring 10 liters of water treatment because that's how much they are going to treat. It's extremely efficient.

However, for someone planning a thru-hike, that system usually won't work without a lot of effort. For the common man, buying a travel sized toothpaste is what you do, and you don't squeeze some of it out when you buy it new cause you only need half of it till the next town is wastefull. But that's what some UL's do. Or they have a bounce box with AquaMira in it to refill they're smaller containers. Refilling they're smaller container will get them to their next bounce box. It's how they shed those extra grams.

For most, that's way too much hassle on a thru hike, can be expensive, and the reason most people are prob having such a hard time matching that low base weight they see on someone else's gear list.

Most of my small consumables (6ml Dr. Bronners, .5oz Sunblock, 0.5oz Deet, .25oz Vaseline, Aquamira) will last me a month. Then I would resupply on them. It's easier for me, and I don't have to chase a bounce box every around.

Hand Sanitizer, TP, & Toothpaste will usually get a refill every other resupply in town.

CarlZ993
02-11-2015, 16:42
I typically use base packweight as my measure of choice. It's easier for my brain to wrap around. I usually exclude food, fuel, & water (consumables). I don't exclude other items that I consume (Aquamira, toothpaste, sunscreen, TP, etc).

I typically wear/carry the same gear: hiking poles, undershirt (S/S), long-sleeve nylon hiking shirt, bandana (around neck or draped over my head), wide-brim hat, sunglasses (although seldom used on the AT), running shorts, convertible hiking pants, wool socks, trail runners, & gaiters. In my pockets, I'll carry lip balm, alcohol gel, map (sometimes in a map case around my neck), notepad & pen, another bandana (green, for my nose), & possibly some trail notes.

The concept of 'from skin-out' makes sense. I just don't want to bother weighing all my food every time. Probably because I don't want to know how heavy my food actually is. I prefer to keep my head in the sand on that issue. :)

Just Bill
02-11-2015, 18:30
Most of my small consumables (6ml Dr. Bronners, .5oz Sunblock, 0.5oz Deet, .25oz Vaseline, Aquamira) will last me a month. Then I would resupply on them. It's easier for me, and I don't have to chase a bounce box every around.

Hand Sanitizer, TP, & Toothpaste will usually get a refill every other resupply in town.

Agree- as long as you've thought about it some- your hike, your choice.

I care very little about weight, other than a light pack overall makes me happy.
If it takes a few extra ounces of consumables to not be frustrated in town on a thru- more happiness to you!
Hell, I have a lot of respect for Tipi, he's figured out what makes him really happy in the style he likes- that's all that matters.

What I found really rewarding about the process overall-
If you take the time to slash and burn down to that 5 or 6lb base, you'll probably realize it sucks a bit and has a very focused use.
However, having gone to the cliff and learned all the tricks, you can "give" yourself back a few pounds and be a really, really happy hiker for taking the journey.
Hell- you can double your load and still be in great shape.

MuddyWaters
02-11-2015, 20:08
Once you are confident from experience that you are carrying the minimum YOU need to be safe and comfortable in expected conditions, you simply dont worry about it anymore. Its that you know from experience and analyzing options, that it cannot get significantly lighter without giving up something you want to keep, or spending more $$$ than you want to. That might be bug netting, synthetic bag, extra clothes, chargers, jetboil, double wall tent, etc. Most never even try to give up some of the things they adhere to though.

Im one of those people. I KNOW I sleep better with bug netting, I KNOW I like hot dinner, I KNOW I like a comfy inflatable sleeping pad.

Spend enough money and you can have it all, for under 10lb today.

kayak karl
02-11-2015, 20:44
, but where is the competition in that? Hiking a sport and we all competing with each other in, weight, miles and speed :rolleyes:

OCDave
02-11-2015, 20:54
, but where is the competition in that? Hiking a sport and we all competing with each other in, weight, miles and speed :rolleyes:

Next up- Shoe size competition. Go!

Connie
02-11-2015, 23:32
Once you are confident from experience that you are carrying the minimum YOU need to be safe and comfortable in expected conditions, you simply dont worry about it anymore. Its that you know from experience and analyzing options, that it cannot get significantly lighter without giving up something you want to keep, or spending more $$$ than you want to. That might be bug netting, synthetic bag, extra clothes, chargers, jetboil, double wall tent, etc. Most never even try to give up some of the things they adhere to though.

Im one of those people. I KNOW I sleep better with bug netting, I KNOW I like hot dinner, I KNOW I like a comfy inflatable sleeping pad.

Spend enough money and you can have it all, for under 10lb today.

+1

I don't try to reproduce "home life". I go for "happy wanderer". I can get to under 10 lbs. :)

I found out from experience hiking mountain terrain I don't mind 18 lbs. backpack, but 20 lbs. interferes with my enjoyment of the hike.

I recently purchased a weight scale for gear. It helps to examine each item of gear closely: it weights that much, do I like those features, could I do this differently.

This helps me plan my trip. I think it is helpful.

However, I will weigh the pack: 18 lbs. out the door.

Thank you, for that. That is the goal, for me.

Migrating Bird
02-12-2015, 12:38
What worked for me was a skin out approach. I created a spreadsheet containing all my equipment with actual wieghts, broken down in sections as I pack them. It also helps priorities items which could be replaced. This includes a section for all items I plan on wearing. So depending on weather/trail conditions I can select my choice of shelter, sleep system, clothes, cooking and consumables. This also serves as my check list. After I pack, I step on a scale to see what weight I really carry. In the past this has helped me not pack the "what ifs".

Just Bill, I'm with you on hiking poles whether I am using them or they're stowed on my pack, they're still dead weight I have to carry . All that being said, if I could loose another 15 lbs, my pack weight would be near zero, but come to think of it that would have to include skin in.:)

Just Bill
02-12-2015, 13:16
, but where is the competition in that? Hiking a sport and we all competing with each other in, weight, miles and speed :rolleyes:

All I know is your kayak is lighter than mine...
I can't believe I lost :mad:

squeezebox
02-12-2015, 13:20
I don't have a kayak so mine is even lighter !!!

honogica
02-12-2015, 13:29
Not sure how all you people do it. When I set foot on a trail my total weight is somewhwere around 280 lbs.

squeezebox
02-12-2015, 13:30
moving weight, ie. bicycle wheels, hiking poles, have a greater effect than dead wt., ie. pack wt. If you're a gram wienie don't put you duct tape on your hiking poles.

Sarcasm the elf
02-12-2015, 14:11
moving weight, ie. bicycle wheels, hiking poles, have a greater effect than dead wt., ie. pack wt. If you're a gram wienie don't put you duct tape on your hiking poles.
You are correct on this. On the other side of the coin, there have actually been a few serious body builders and rock climbers who have added weight to their poles in order to maintain their upper body strength while hiking. One guy who was on the PCT a few years ago was a climber had his water bottles strapped to his poles to give his arms a workout.

1234
02-12-2015, 14:18
http://lighterpack.com/r/41s4b1

This person has it all and it is very well done. They did not leave out anything. A very organized way to look at the whole weight picture. AND it is a very light setup for a thru hike.

LDog
02-12-2015, 15:54
I've been hiking long-assed sections for the last several years, and I reevaluate my gear before every section. Both for expected wx, and to see where I can find weight efficiencies while still meeting my wants and needs.

My base weight is important to me, because I need to know if my lightweight pack with minimal suspension is going to handle the load with the amount of food and water I expect to be carrying. It's ultimately whether the pack is gonna transfer that weight effectively to my hips. If not, I may need a different pack to be comfortable. I've got my summer base weight down to around 14 lbs, so I can carry 10 lbs of food and 4 lbs of water fairly comfortably with a ULA Ohm 2. If I could loose 2 lbs, I'd be happier. I'm working on it, but I do like my comforts. It's a dynamic tension thing ...

Skin-out/FSO weight takes into account the weight I'm putting on my knees and feet. As an old phart, that's important to me. So I look at shorts v trousers, LS v SS shirts, trail runners v boots; and choose the lightest I can find that meets my requirements for weather, terrain, bugs ...

I do consider the fat around my middle a consumable tho ... Like my food bag, my body is always lighter at the end of a long section...

Uriah
02-12-2015, 16:55
Ultimately, your feet will remind you of the weight they are carrying, no matter how it's being divvied up or worn (though weight placed on the hiking poles actually makes more sense in this regard, since they're planted on the ground and thereby off the feet). Earl Shaffer once said "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between traveling light, and not traveling at all," but he didn't know about some of today's unwise, who manage otherwise.

colorado_rob
02-12-2015, 17:20
Ultimately, your feet will remind you of the weight they are carrying, no matter how it's being divvied up or worn (though weight placed on the hiking poles actually makes more sense in this regard, since they're planted on the ground and thereby off the feet). Earl Shaffer once said "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between traveling light, and not traveling at all," but he didn't know about some of today's unwise, who manage otherwise.We're all different. My feet never hurt, I've hiked something upward of 15,000 miles in my adult life without foot pain, only my back/shoulders hurt when I carry a too-heavy pack. I'm fairly skinny. For stockier builds, pack weight vs. overall weight makes less of a difference, I would suppose.

Earl was a wise man, except he might have said: "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between traveling light and in comfort, or not"

Just Bill
02-12-2015, 17:56
Horace Kephart, Camping and Woodcraft- published in 1906.

"I am speaking of all-day hikes, across country, through the woods, uphill and down dale. In untracked wilderness, especially if it be mountainous, it takes a husky fellow, in good form, to pack fifty pounds without over-exertion. Yes, infantryman carry seventy, sometimes, but they don't do it through thickets, over rocks and down-logs, up and down ravines, where there are no trails- nor are they out for the fun of the thing. The personal equation, then- your own- regardless of what other folks do, or think you ought to do. Find out what is light and easy for you, and then GO LIGHT."**

** the capital letters are in the original text, nearly fifty years before Sai Schaffer, nearly ninety before GoLite took up the slogan.

"Let me not be misunderstood as counseling anybody to "rough it" by sleeping on the bare ground and eating nothing but hardtack and bacon. Only a tenderfoot will parade a scorn of comfort and a taste for useless hardships. As "Nessmuk" says: "We do not go to the woods to rough it; we go to the woods to smooth it- we get it rough enough in town. But let us live the simple, natural life in the woods, and leave all frills behind."

An old campaigner is known by the simplicity and fitness of his equipment. He carries few "fixings," and every article has been well tested and it is the best that his purse can afford....

....The art of going "light but right" is hard to learn. I never knew a camper who did not burden himself, at first, with a lot of kickshaws that he did not need in the woods; nor one who, if he learned anything, did not soon begin to weed them out; nor even a veteran who ever quite attained his own ideal of lightness and serviceability. Probably "Nessmuk" came as near to it as any one, after he got that famous ten-pound canoe. He said that his load, including canoe, knapsack, blanket bag, extra clothing, hatchet, rod, and two days rations, "never exceeded twenty six pounds; and I went prepared to camp out any and every night.""

Nearly 100 years before Skura popularized "Stupid Light" Uncle Horace apparently was quite familiar with the concept- "light but right":)

Uriah
02-12-2015, 18:05
We're all different. My feet never hurt, I've hiked something upward of 15,000 miles in my adult life without foot pain, only my back/shoulders hurt when I carry a too-heavy pack. I'm fairly skinny. For stockier builds, pack weight vs. overall weight makes less of a difference, I would suppose.

Earl was a wise man, except he might have said: "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between traveling light and in comfort, or not"

Good point Rob. My point was essentially that something will remind us of the weight we're carrying, be it feet, a back or a hiker's knees (and so forth), and that that reminder will be ever more present as the weight we carry increases (as we all know). Measure the weight however you like (pack weight, skin-out, etc), but the body will know what it's carrying (or not carrying). And the more in tune we are with our bodies---or the more weight we carry---the better we know.

Like you, I'm one of the fortunate ones: no pain with a comparable number of miles under my belt. Then again, a gradually lighter load has helped, especially I begin pushing into the second half of life (or what I hope will be the second half, anyway).

As for your edit of Earl's quote, I'd inject: "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between traveling light and in relative comfort, or not..." Comfort could never truly be the main aim or a long-distance backpacker or he or she would never leave the house!

Just Bill
02-12-2015, 18:08
One other favorite relative to this discussion-

"Now it is not needful nor advisable for a camper in our time to suffer hardships from stinting his supplies. It is foolish to take insufficient bedding, or to rely upon a diet of pork, beans, and hardtack, in a country where game may be scarce. The knack is in striking a happy medium between too much luggage and too little. Ideal outfitting is to have what we want, when we want it, and not to be bothered with anything else. A pair of scales are good things to have at hand when one is making up his packs. Scales of another kind will then fall from his eyes. He will note how the little, unconsidered trifles mount up; how every bag or tin adds weight. Now let him imagine himself toiling uphill under an August sun, or foraging through thicket woods, over rocks and roots and fallen trees, with all this stuff on his back. Again, let him think of a chill, wet night ahead, and of what he will really need to keep himself warm, dry, and well ballasted amidships. Balancing these two hardships one against the other, he cannot go far wrong in selecting his outfit."

In italics in the original text.

FYI- Horace Kephart was in large part responsible for the route the AT takes through the Smokies, and of course in large part responsible for the fact that the Smokies exist at all.

The more things change...

JumpMaster Blaster
02-14-2015, 06:39
For me, the only thing I count as consumable is food & water. Hand sani, Aquamira tablets, toothpaste, et al is considered base weight. I dont get too concerned with what I'm wearing for FSO, but many times will factor the bare minimum I'll wear on the trail, and count extra layers I may wear in my BPW. What I wont do is say "I'll just wear this to cut down on my BPW". To me thats cheating. My cell phone is in my pocket, but that counts toward pack weight.