Dollars for Ounces

[Singto]

Of course there are many considerations but as a "rule of thumb" what are you willing to pay per ounce to reduce pack weight?

Example: I have a warmer weather Nature Hike LW180 bag that weighs 1.5 pounds with it's compression sack. I can spend $75 to get an Aegismax down bag that weighs 1 pound and 1 ounce with compression sack. This results in a 7 ounce savings which comes out at $10.71 per ounce. The Aegismax offers a slightly smaller compressed size and a little lower temp rating too.

Deal or no deal?

[Dogwood]

This is not in context of gear and not to be contentious but I have to say this because more times than not the majority of backpackers rationale is that it costs money to save pack weight. What one carries in a backpack most often includes consumables. It doesn't cost any added money to learn how to save on food and water wt. Actually, when one can knowledgably dial down personal consumable wt in terms of food and water wt it can put money back in your pocket...to possibly focus on reducing gear wt a few more ozs. And, if for example your carrying 5+ days of food at an average of 1.5 -2.5 lbs/day the total food wt alone can often be the single heaviest category in one's packs... more than the wt of a tent, sleeping bag, cook system, pack etc. Now add in water wt at 2.2 lbs per liter. But talking about reducing kit wt by solely focusing on gear wt especially when it gets into saving ozs and $/ozs spent is so much sexier and appealing to our U.S. consumer shopaholic tendencies.


Getting to your question though IMO it depends where on the kit wt scale you've evolved. There are several threads on this exact question you posed that I recall that went several pages of opinions. Maybe, others with better WB search skills will link to them for you.

[El JP]

I've done it a few times. Seeing as i don't have the budget for the gee wiz specialist featherweight gear i did what i could within reason. Before all this i never ever would have given the slightest thought of spending money on a titanium pot or a jacket based on weight considerations.

I'm pretty sure i'm not going to be anyone's example of ultralight, but still.

[MtDoraDave]

Some people pay $50 per ounce to save weight (cuben tent vs tarptent), so $10 per oz sounds like a bargain.

[4shot]

I'm not an UL guy but I think the answer to your question depends where you are on the learning curve. Initially I turned over a lot of gear until I found out what I liked/didn't like. it wasn't cheap but it takes trial and error and everyone is different. Now I will only spend to replace gear at or near the end of its life cycle. I carry a pack that many on here would consider heavy but I love its fit and comfort. So. I am not going to spend just to drop another pound (+/-) of gear weight. As I prepare for my upcoming summer hike, my focus is on dropping 12-15 lbs. of body weight. That is often overlooked and neglected and will help a hiker more than dropping 2 ounces by switching to a titanium spork.

[garlic08]

I am a UM hiker, ultra-miser. I never spent any extra money to save ounces. When I hiked the AT my pack weighed 8 pounds. Everything, including what I wore, cost $800, and that included a new 15F Marmot down bag, Tarptent shelter, and Gossamer Gear pack. Weight savings came from gradually replacing worn-out gear with lighter stuff, and looking for sales and deals and bartering with friends with sewing machines. From my experience, going lighter actually saved money, especially considering the quality and durability of the gear I hike with. My down bag, for instance, has outlasted several cheaper, heavier synthetic bags.

I don't own anything made with Cuben. I haven't had to replace anything yet that would realize savings worth the extra cost. My pack is light enough now that I barely notice it. A seven pound pack vs an eight pound pack won't affect my hiking at all, really.

[Maineiac64]

Be careful you are getting comparable performance, how are you saving the weight in a bag?

[Hikingjim]

To someone that actually needs their cash and just wants to walk, that type of decision is probably a bad deal
But for someone who is struggling with their carried weight, or has some extra cash they want to buy some things with, maybe a good deal.

Depends how much you walk as well. If you go out month or several weeks a year, or are doing a thru, it could be worth it.

[Gambit McCrae]

My latest and last purchases for many years now that fall under the category of saving weight would be me replacing my tent and pack this year. My Tarptent was worn out so it needed to be replaced, and I impulse on the pack and thru it in the cart. So without the $100 discount my total was just over 1K. Which came out to $23.81/ounce. By making the gear choices that I did, I took out about 3.5-4 lbs. from my pack base weight. Putting my in the sub 6lb big four weight range. I purchased this with funds solely off of older gear that was not and had not been used for several years, and I waited until the holiday sale went off which gave me $100 off my order. I am a happy camper with my purchase.

[devoidapop]

What I'm finding out is that you really pay a premium for gear that packs down tightly. You pay in cash, comfort, or both. I can't justify the money, so I try to figure out what comforts I can do without and still enjoy my trips.

[colorado_rob]

Of course there are many considerations but as a "rule of thumb" what are you willing to pay per ounce to reduce pack weight?

Example: I have a warmer weather Nature Hike LW180 bag that weighs 1.5 pounds with it's compression sack. I can spend $75 to get an Aegismax down bag that weighs 1 pound and 1 ounce with compression sack. This results in a 7 ounce savings which comes out at $10.71 per ounce. The Aegismax offers a slightly smaller compressed size and a little lower temp rating too.

Deal or no deal?
Might be pure coincidence, but my rule of thumb is pretty close to your example. Lots of things go in to the purchase of a new piece of gear, but if I have a perfectly good piece of gear, and something comes out that is lighter and has at least as good of performance, I'll seriously consider buying it if I can save a half a pound per $100 spent, which of course is about $12/ ounce.

This has nothing to do with being a shopaholic, imho, it has to do with the simple fact that since long distance hiking is our favorite thing to do, and is relatively inexpensive all things considered, buying excellent gear is well worth it. And gear weight (or lack of it!) is one very important measure of its excellence.

I love the saying I heard here once: "buying an outstanding piece of gear hurts only once, but buying cheap gear hurts as long as you use it", something like that.

[Gambit McCrae]

I love the saying I heard here once: "buying an outstanding piece of gear hurts only once, but buying cheap gear hurts as long as you use it", something like that.

Oh man I like that!!!!!! lol

[Slo-go'en]

Well, considering your current bag is comfort rated at 68 degrees, 59 min, it's hardly better then a bed sheet. The
Aegismax is rated down to 36 degrees, which is a significant improvement (if it can be believed). So, for $75 and if you only do summer time camping, it seems like a good deal.

[Dogwood]

Might be pure coincidence, but my rule of thumb is pretty close to your example. Lots of things go in to the purchase of a new piece of gear, but if I have a perfectly good piece of gear, and something comes out that is lighter and has at least as good of performance, I'll seriously consider buying it if I can save a half a pound per $100 spent, which of course is about $12/ ounce.

This has nothing to do with being a shopaholic, imho, it has to do with the simple fact that since long distance hiking is our favorite thing to do, and is relatively inexpensive all things considered, buying excellent gear is well worth it. And gear weight (or lack of it!) is one very important measure of its excellence.

I love the saying I heard here once: "buying an outstanding piece of gear hurts only once, but buying cheap gear hurts as long as you use it", something like that.


Not always! Nowhere do you mention durability. When going lighter even though performance standards can increase, and one might perceive their gear purchases as 'outstanding?' or 'excellent?', some lighter wt and certainly UL/SUL gear sacrifices durability and sometimes even gear performance to achieve that lighter wt making more regular major $$$ UL/SUL gear replacement purchases a necessity so it certainly can hurt one's pocket book. This is one of the things one can sacrifice to gain that lighter kit wt and what it seems the OP was asking. Again, this depends on factoring in where on the kit wt reducing learning curve one is. :)

[colorado_rob]

Not always! Nowhere do you mention durability. When going lighter even though performance standards can increase, and one might perceive their gear purchases as 'outstanding?' or 'excellent?', some lighter wt and certainly UL/SUL gear sacrifices durability and sometimes even gear performance to achieve that lighter wt making more regular major $$$ UL/SUL gear replacement purchases a necessity so it certainly can hurt one's pocket book. This is one of the things one can sacrifice to gain that lighter kit wt and what it seems the OP was asking. Again, this depends on factoring in where on the kit wt reducing learning curve one is. :)Agree on the durability thing, but if you buy carefully, I think you can get near identical performance out of UL (but expensive!) gear.

Many times it is a trade off lack-of-weight vs. durability.

I've found that UL packs definitely have a shortened life vs. heavier material packs. At least the ones I've owned. However, I have not seen any durability issues with Cuben ("dyneema composite") tents. I've had one for 5 years now, used well over 100 times, I see zero wear/tear. Same with sleeping bags. I have had one particular super-light, expensive, high quality bag for 14 years, don't see any wear/tear on that either. I switched to quilts a couple years ago, purchased a couple of top quality ones, should last a long time.

So it does vary depending on the particular piece of gear.

[Dogwood]

Well said.

[AllDownhillFromHere]

$10-15 is a common number I've heard, but as others have said, be careful about performance - or at least be aware and ok with it

[QiWiz]

For me, I don't want to think about how much I've spent to go lighter. Too much I'm sure. The best pounds for the $$ for me has been to have good information about water sources so that I have to carry only the water I need to get to the next water source after drinking my fill at the water source in front of me. To do this most effectively, you need information (like Guthook's app and/or the AT Guide pdf on your smartphone) about water sources and a way to treat it quickly for instant drinking (like a SteriPen, Sawyer filter, or BeFree filter) so that you can "camel up" and carry less.

[Cheyou]

Buy used, returned, on sale. Get quality light big 4 (back pack,sleeping bag tent and pad). No need to spend big money clothing. IMHO. Well maybe not so H ;0)

thom

[HooKooDooKu]

Ditto on the notion of making sure you're spending money on quality light weight gear and not simply just light weight gear.

Also keep in mind (for those of use who are over-weight) losing body weight also lightens your load without lighting your wallet.

[Leo L.]

Usually I'm just carrying the stuff I own for the hikes I'm doing, and adjust my miles to the weight I'm carrying. My only optimization was, to not carry what I don't need - and being extremely religious at that.
This worked just fine for decades - until I got to know WB and other sources where I'd learned about you US gram weenies (actually my entry point into this topic was Ray Jardins, a guy well known in the climbers world, famous book).
Now in the past few years I tried to follow your route going light, and purchasing new, lightweight gear.
Honestly, with some mixed result.
More than before I strongly belive that its better to something leave at home, than to replace it by a lighter version and carrying it.
I'm having a hard time handling al this flimsy superlightweight stuff, always being afraid that it will not stand in a serious condition.

Giving some examples, my new pack (Hyperlight 65lt) is half the weight than my old Cerro Torre 80lt and fits my need perfectly.
My MSR Hubba Hubba NX, and the Exped UL 600 down bag both I doubt if they were the perfect purchase for me. I'd prefer to carry an extra kilo here and rest assured that the pieces will stand all and everything (what I'm not so sure about both pieces right now).
At the end of a day, I'd live more easily with not having done the mileage I'd planned due to heavier pack, but sleep snug in a sturdy tent and wide bag in any weatherconditions.
Its more about number of days being out, than miles hiked per day, for me.

[nsherry61]

. . . I have a warmer weather Nature Hike LW180 bag that weighs 1.5 pounds . . . I can spend $75 to get an Aegismax down bag that weighs 1 pound and 1 ounce . . . Deal or no deal?
No deal. As was quoted above by colorado_rob, "buying an outstanding piece of gear hurts only once, but buying cheap gear hurts as long as you use it"

You can go cheap and light on stoves and cook gear (heck, you can do without).
You can go cheap and fairly light on cloths by buying from thrift stores or just buying less expensive everyday type cloths made with appropriate materials.
You can go cheap and light on food with raman, couscous, instant rice, Idahoan mashed potatoes, etc.
You can go cheap and light on trekking poles, nice ones are great, but ski poles work and poles aren't critical gear (just super useful).
You can go cheap and ultra-light on shelter by learning to use and then using a tarp.
You can go cheap and light on rain-gear with frog-togs or a poncho.

If you're young, you can go cheap and light with a closed cell foam sleeping pad.

BUT, I have yet to meet anyone that has been happy, in the long run, with either a cheap backpack or a cheap sleeping bag/quilt. There is just too much tech and costly materials to make good ones of these cheap.

The best way to save weight and money is to not take stuff.

Spend your time practicing and learning. Spend your planning on planning to thrive without things you thought you needed. Spend your money on a good sleeping bag/quilt and a good backpack.

Okay, enough ranting. To answer the OP's question, I've never budgeted for weight savings. If I have the money to spend and I want to upgrade and save a particular 2 g I'll do it regardless of the cost. Weight is never the only factor for me even though my base weight is typically 5-10 lbs depending on the trip. If I don't have the money, I'll get by just fine with what I already have or what I can already afford.

[Venchka]

Something many folks don’t learn until they have made a mistake or two. I know this through personal experience.
Sleeping bags or quilts and backpacks should fit you the user. Just as important as finding shoes that fit. Something else that it took me quite awhile to learn.
Don’t weigh what you carry. Weigh what you leave at home. Including body weight.
I’ve learned to pay attention to how much things weigh. But I never buy on weight alone. Form follows function.
Good luck!
Wayne

[DownEaster]

Already had a 2 oz. plastic trowel. Bought a 0.6 ounce Deuce of Spades aluminum trowel for $17.50. $17.50/1.4 ounces = $12.50 per ounce saved. (To be fair, the Coghlan's plastic trowel is old and I was worried about it being too brittle to survive the AT.)

[Dogwood]

Already had a 2 oz. plastic trowel. Bought a 0.6 ounce Deuce of Spades aluminum trowel for $17.50. $17.50/1.4 ounces = $12.50 per ounce saved. (To be fair, the Coghlan's plastic trowel is old and I was worried about it being too brittle to survive the AT.)


I save wt and money by using a stick or kicking a few times with toe/heel into the soil to dig a cat hole to survive disposal duties on the AT. ;)


Does anyone use a potty trowel for multiple uses? tent stake? fending off spidey webs,....?

[AllDownhillFromHere]

Already had a 2 oz. plastic trowel. Bought a 0.6 ounce Deuce of Spades aluminum trowel for $17.50. $17.50/1.4 ounces = $12.50 per ounce saved. (To be fair, the Coghlan's plastic trowel is old and I was worried about it being too brittle to survive the AT.)
I love the Deuce, if just for the name. The orange plastic trowel is better for digging really good, deep catholes though. Some guys use a stick or a boot and you know in a few hours their 1" deep cathole is dug up and rolled in by something.

[blw2]

well I just ordered a tent...a duplex from Zpacks' bargain bin......$611.31 after taxes
to replace my REI duplex (which is one of those in the hurts category....I like the tent, but I bought it with a little backpacking in mind but now realize how heavy it is on those old body) Bought that tent in the fall of 2014 for about $140 I think, on sale....and have enjoyed it for camping with the scouts so in the end, no regrets...sort of...
but it's still in really great shape & still usable....
so, 105 Oz - 21 oz = 84 oz delta
$611.31/84 oz = approx $7.28 per ounce.
(not exactly right, because the zpacks weight is book, not including stakes).....so let's say approx $8/oz

[Singto]

Great posts and different points of view are valuable. At the moment, with my Kelty Tuck 22 bag, my big 4 are at 8.25 pounds. Since I am shifting to a Flip Flop starting at the end of April in HF I am thinking that the Kelty is overkill. I have the LW180 already but think it might not be warm enough so I am attempting to further justifying purchasing the Aegismax by weight and space savings. If I go with the Aegis, my big 4 goes down to nearly 6.25 (6.75 with the LW180) pounds. I know the Aegis isn't a mountain hardware or Zpacks bag but I think it is plenty good enough to get me through an AT thru hike attempt, which is all I am looking for from my current gear. To answer myself, the question that I posed to everyone, my usual dollars for ounce benchmark is at $10. I have an unused plastic orange trowel (2 ounces) too....cost me $2.22 and it's hard to justify a Deuce of Spades at this point...hahaha.

I have been considering important points made by others: dropping body weight, minimizing water carriage (through good planning) and managing consumables such as how much food...all very relevant points in the overall strategy to increase the odds of success. All of your input is appreciated.

[Dogwood]

I love the Deuce, if just for the name. The orange plastic trowel is better for digging really good, deep catholes though. Some guys use a stick or a boot and you know in a few hours their 1" deep cathole is dug up and rolled in by something.


I wear size 14" shoes as a 200 lb 6'4" man. I can toe or heel kick a cat hole deeper than 1". :D Good pt though in digging a deep enough cat hole.

[rocketsocks]

I wear size 14" shoes as a 200 lb 6'4" man. I can toe or heel kick a cat hole deeper than 1". :D Good pt though in digging a deep enough cat hole.if ya come off the top rope and use your elbow you can prolly get down to 2” :D

[Elaikases]

if ya come off the top rope and use your elbow you can prolly get down to 2” :D

Better than the guy who had pooped on the middle of the trail on my last section going north from Harper's Ferry. He had tastefully surrounded and covered the poop with paper though and had it up against a tree that was in the middle of the trail. I was just amazed.

Though I see a lot of 1" to 2" holes in dry weather or where the roots are heavy.

[garlic08]

What a nice thought as I make breakfast.

To continue the thread, how much per ounce would you pay for someone to bury his/her poop?

[Cheyou]

Weigh everything bring The lightest item that works for the job.

Thom

[QiWiz]

Does anyone use a potty trowel for multiple uses? tent stake? fending off spidey webs,....?

Best additional uses I have put mine to are: to create a larger/deeper water channel in a tiny stream to get water from more easily; to make a spout to channel water from a seep into a container; to chip tent stakes out of frozen ground; to move coals around in or out of a campfire for more controlled cooking or baking; to dig worms for bait; extra tent stake or snow stake. I'm sure a forgotten a couple.

[dwcoyote]

Don’t weigh what you carry. Weigh what you leave at home. Including body weight.

Best comment of this thread. I took between 3 and 3 1/2 pounds off my base weight in the last 2 years by not taking stuff that I never used. Most of it was for things that I can accomplish with another piece of gear I am already carrying if the need ever arises. And the best thing I did was drop about 20 pounds of body weight. I watched youtube videos all the time of people who were carrying 30-40 extra pounds of body weight talking about how to save 4 ounces of base weight. I realized I was one of those people and let me tell you the difference in my pace, feelings in my joints when hiking, and my recovery are all better since dropping the body weight and leaving unneeded items at home.

[Dogwood]

Hope that's not your drinking water QWiz. :) Thx for posting the multiple uses. I'm actually all for a cat trowel as your product helps us all to be responsible with waste disposal. No one has to justify what they do or don't carry to anyone else including me because we take different approaches to responsibly avoiding waste properly.

[Venchka]

Don’t weigh what you carry. Weigh what you leave at home. Including body weight.

Best comment of this thread. I took between 3 and 3 1/2 pounds off my base weight in the last 2 years by not taking stuff that I never used. Most of it was for things that I can accomplish with another piece of gear I am already carrying if the need ever arises. And the best thing I did was drop about 20 pounds of body weight. I watched youtube videos all the time of people who were carrying 30-40 extra pounds of body weight talking about how to save 4 ounces of base weight. I realized I was one of those people and let me tell you the difference in my pace, feelings in my joints when hiking, and my recovery are all better since dropping the body weight and leaving unneeded items at home.
Thank you. Welcome to the club of lighter weight backpackers.
Unfortunately, I've allowed a few pounds to creep back on. I'll do my best to reduce those before the next trip to the Rockies.
Cheers!
Wayne

[garlic08]

Hope that's not your drinking water QWiz...

My thought exactly. A PCT buddy lost his spoon, and used his snow stake/potty trowel instead. Gag. Aren't there kosher-type laws for this sort of thing?

[MuddyWaters]

The most money will be saved in the long run by buying the right gear the first time.

Replacing gear is what is what costs $$$.

[devoidapop]

The most money will be saved in the long run by buying the right gear the first time.

Replacing gear is what is what costs $$$.

I agree, but how do you know what you don't know? You can recommendations and read reviews but some gear you just have to buy and try and hope you can sell if it's not for you.

[MuddyWaters]

I agree, but how do you know what you don't know? You can recommendations and read reviews but some gear you just have to buy and try and hope you can sell if it's not for you.

Well the bend of the question was about reducing weight and the cost to do that.

I think a lot of newbies are shocked at the cost of light weight gear and convince themselves that it's okay to get things that are a little bit heavier and more durable but cheaper. (It certainly is!)

Then, they find out that their pack weighs more than they like and they really like to get that weight down. Because they see others doing it and well who wants to be left out?

In that regard it's not as much about finding gear that will work for you as it is settling or compromising on heavier cheaper gear in the first place

[nsherry61]

. . . it's not as much about finding gear that will work for you as it is settling or compromising on heavier cheaper gear in the first place
Or compromising with light and cheap gear that doesn't perform adequately and/or falls apart so it has to be replaced and thus doesn't save money or meet your needs in the first place.

Personally, I'm a big fan of educating one's self so that much of the gear doesn't have to be used/purchased at all and/or what gear is purchases is simpler gear with fewer features and thus less money and lighter all at the same time.

[DownEaster]

Personally, I'm a big fan of educating one's self so that much of the gear doesn't have to be used/purchased at all and/or what gear is purchases is simpler gear with fewer features and thus less money and lighter all at the same time.
And that approach will work for some hikers, but be completely unsuitable for others. Big example: going stoveless.

[Cheyou]

And that approach will work for some hikers, but be completely unsuitable for others. Big example: going stoveless.


Going stoveless cost nothing ! I thought this was about being cheep .

[colorado_rob]

Going stoveless cost nothing ! I thought this was about being cheep .Nope, it's about trade offs.

1) cheap
2) functional
3) light

Choose two!

[Cheyou]

Going stoveless is all 3 ;0)

[blw2]

My thought exactly. A PCT buddy lost his spoon, and used his snow stake/potty trowel instead. Gag. Aren't there kosher-type laws for this sort of thing?

Well I'd hope it was only used to shovel dirt.....so no big deal. I wouldn't want to put it back in my pack if it was used for what you are thinking!

[TexasBob]

Nope, it's about trade offs.

1) cheap
2) functional
3) light

Choose two!

DIY alcohol stoves are all 3.

[Coffee]

Dogwood's initial response was right on target IMO. Consumable items will often be the heaviest category in a pack for segments over a few days in duration. I remember well my first JMT thru hike when I obsessed over "base weight" endlessly trying to figure out ways to get that number lower, and then I proceeded to carry probably 2 liters of water most of the time on a trail that has abundant water nearly everywhere. A liter of water weights 1 KG, or around 2.2 pounds so I was lugging over four pounds all the time for no reason. That offset the weight savings I obtained by buying a new tent four times over. Crazy.

All of that being said, dialing in consumable items is very difficult for many people and only comes with personal experience of how much water and food YOU need for a given distance under certain circumstances. It is normal, and probably not a terrible idea, to take a bit more than needed until confident in the strategy.

Regarding the actual question, I recently ordered a zPacks ArcBlast 55L at a whopping total cost of $380 (including two hip belt pockets and an optional strap). The pack should weigh 14 ounces less than my perfectly serviceable ULA Circuit which has been with me for at least 2,500 miles of hiking over the past five years. So I paid $27 per ounce for this savings. The Circuit is nearly perfect condition so it was an optional decision. But I'm curious about. both cuben packs and the air ventilation the pack provides vs. the Circuit and frankly just felt like trying it out, and I can afford to do it. So the answer to the question of how much to spend to save an ounce is a good one, but will be very individual and, as others have said, look first to food and water optimization before expensive gear changes.

[colorado_rob]

DIY alcohol stoves are all 3.Nope, they are not functional, sorry! Of course, we all define what is "functional".

[Carl7]

While preparing for a section hike last summer in S. ME, NH, part of VT, I had weighed all equipment to the gram including food. I thought there was nowhere else I could cut. However, I did not properly account for food I picked along the way at huts, small stores, trail magic, etc. As such, I carried too much food, about 1/2 a pound per day. With a 5 day carry at one point, this was 2.5 pounds, 40 oz, of extra dead weight. There's nothing like getting to places like the top of Mt. Washington to leave Cliff bars in a hiker box. Now there's some sweat equity for you. I personally think closely watching consumables is the way to go. And by the way, at one point in the hike I felt like I would throw up if I had to eat another Cliff Bar, and I can typically eat anything.

[TexasBob]

Nope, they are not functional, sorry! Of course, we all define what is "functional".

I knew that was coming!

[Heliotrope]

Dogwood's initial response was right on target IMO. Consumable items will often be the heaviest category in a pack for segments over a few days in duration. I remember well my first JMT thru hike when I obsessed over "base weight" endlessly trying to figure out ways to get that number lower, and then I proceeded to carry probably 2 liters of water most of the time on a trail that has abundant water nearly everywhere. A liter of water weights 1 KG, or around 2.2 pounds so I was lugging over four pounds all the time for no reason. That offset the weight savings I obtained by buying a new tent four times over. Crazy.

All of that being said, dialing in consumable items is very difficult for many people and only comes with personal experience of how much water and food YOU need for a given distance under certain circumstances. It is normal, and probably not a terrible idea, to take a bit more than needed until confident in the strategy.

Regarding the actual question, I recently ordered a zPacks ArcBlast 55L at a whopping total cost of $380 (including two hip belt pockets and an optional strap). The pack should weigh 14 ounces less than my perfectly serviceable ULA Circuit which has been with me for at least 2,500 miles of hiking over the past five years. So I paid $27 per ounce for this savings. The Circuit is nearly perfect condition so it was an optional decision. But I'm curious about. both cuben packs and the air ventilation the pack provides vs. the Circuit and frankly just felt like trying it out, and I can afford to do it. So the answer to the question of how much to spend to save an ounce is a good one, but will be very individual and, as others have said, look first to food and water optimization before expensive gear changes.

Very well stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ARambler]

So many ways of not answering the question, but I think the best non-answer is to ask what percentage of on-trail expenses should be allocated to reducing weight?
So, if you are very tight on funds, the difference between a ULA circuit at 235 vs 380 is $145 or $10/oz. This might be a lot for you. If you are spending 10k on the trail, the $27/oz to replace a good pack might be a very good use of funds. I try to buy the best the first time and live with that decision. You can usually get lots of opinions on the web. > $20/oz seems reasonable.

[blw2]

The most money will be saved in the long run by buying the right gear the first time.

Replacing gear is what is what costs $$$.

Yeah, but its also a learning curve. "The greatest teacher, failure is. - Yoda"

I bought a pack years ago from amazon, thinking I might get into backpacking a bit. Ordered something cheap (a Teton Sports)thinking IF I do go it won't be very much or very far, so this will be good enough. I used it a bit, but I hated that pack. Now that I've done a lot more research, I see how really heavy it is.

Ditto my last tent purchase, previously mentioned in this thread. Several years ago now, my ancient kelty tent was dead and I decided to get a tent, a small 1-2 man for use camping with my son's scout pack & troop, and something small enough to do a bit of backpacking....thinking I won't go enough to justify spending a bunch on it....so the REI half dome.

Now later, as I gear up, I realize that I can afford a few things, and that packing up one mountain with this old desk jockey body, every ounce will count.....so to a point, even if I end up only doing 1 trip up to the mountains this summer, and never again.... and the rest of my camping short hikes down here in flat land, the weight savings will help make it more enjoyable
&/or free me up to carry just a bit more of my kids load or my wife's in the rare chance she comes along...
so,
while I'm not buying top of the line everything, I have spent for a light pack and a light tent where i figure I can get the biggest bang for the buck...saved a bit on other things though, such as a synthetic puffy instead of down....

[Dogwood]

Saving large amounts of wt in what's carried does not have to be about anally gram weenieing "dialing in" consumables only after much personal experience. I wrote "dialing down" intentionally so it would not be perceived as a gram weenie exercise.

Many backpackers, including the ones engaged in anally gram weenieing/oz counting gear, and buying into the assumption they are at a stage that it costs $-$$$$$ to reduce kit wt, can often benefit more from reducing consumable wt. This is especially valid if they are accustomed to multi day food hauls. As it's said wt added in and wt saved adds up. How true when it comes to multi day food hauls.

And, let's be real Americans. Quite a few of us can certainly survive a day or two or even benefit by consuming less food even on trail.

[colorado_rob]

All good thoughts and discussions! The consumable thing is a biggie of course, but it's all part of the Big Picture of total weight.

Yeah DW, there sure is a lot of Food Fear on the trail, some sort of base-animal-instinct fear of starving to death or something. Or dying of thirst. After a bit of experience, there really is no excuse carrying an additional 1/2 pound of food a day on a well populated trail for 3 seasons of the year (winter is another story, of course). Or carrying three quarts (or even 2 or even ONE in some cases) of water when there is a reliable source 5 miles ahead.

But I still think the main cause of too-heavy packs is the gear.

Anyway, my wife and I are starting a course at the CO mountain club in Golden, titled (I think) "Lightweight Long Distance Backpacking (including aspects of thru hiking)" as a follow-on to our regular backpacking school held each summer. Notice I didn't use the word "ultralight" because frankly, I'm not really a true ultralight fan. We're more somewhere in the middle of "lightweight" and UL. Anyway, I'll be sure to include discussions on consumables and of course, body weight.

Over the 5 decades of backpacking, I've found, even now in my old age that once you're below 20-25 pounds of total weight, there is very little extra hiking comfort. I formed a notional little graph some years back that tries to illustrate my point, see attached pic. Again, strictly notional, but about right for myself.

What shaving additional ounces and pounds off your base weight (non consumables) does, of course, is to allow one to hike longer distances in between resupply, sometimes important on some trails or routes (like the SHR or Heyduke, for example) where resupply is scarce. Then you have technical hiking trails where you carry technical gear, yikes, that stuff, even the best and lightest, gets heavy.

And I've said it before and like a broken record, I'll say it again, the absolute silliest thing I see out there is carrying a relatively heavy item that has a cheap and lighter alternative "just because". The classic is those ridiculous 6.7 ounce Nalgene bottles that I still see all over the place. Yikes! Three of those weighs one pound more than three gatorade (or other drink) bottles. WHY do people still carry those things?

[MuddyWaters]

And I've said it before and like a broken record, I'll say it again, the absolute silliest thing I see out there is carrying a relatively heavy item that has a cheap and lighter alternative "just because". The classic is those ridiculous 6.7 ounce Nalgene bottles that I still see all over the place. Yikes! Three of those weighs one pound more than three gatorade (or other drink) bottles. WHY do people still carry those things?

Because REI sells it, and so it must be needed to play the part of a backpacker.

I'll give it this they are probably a more secure shatterproof water container. If you plan on allowing your only water container to roll off off a cliff , then maybe you ought to carry one.

Or, one could simply be more careful.

I had a ride once where a smart water bottle rolled out the back of their car when they lifted the back so I could get my pack out. The smart water bottle fell about 18in on to some pointy limestone gravel. I later noticed that it had made a small hole in the side of the bottle, and that the bottle leaked over half full. I only normally use even lighter water bottles. But I'm careful that nothing happens to them . I also know that I can use a Ziploc as a backup water container if necessary for a while. I imagine that some people such as Scouts are not as careful and can benefit from a more durable containers.

I Know It one ex Scout backpacker at work who carries one around as a drink bottle all the time he's quite attached to it. It's literally a symbol of outdoor hiking or something to him

[lonehiker]

Going stoveless is all 3 ;0)

I have been experimenting with going stoveless (2 trips to Big Bend NP). But, and I know that I have yet to dial in my meal options, so far I have found that it has increased my dinner meal weight. I am trying to have a dinner meal of some substance as opposed to just snack crap like I eat for lunches. So my initial thoughts are that stove vs stoveless is wash in regards to weight.

Back on topic though; I don't just purchase a lighter piece of gear just to save weight. I purchase lighter as I replace gear. Although, I generally replace gear well before it actually wears out. Two contributing ideas to this mentality. One is that I don't want an item to fail while on a hike so I replace before it reaches its life expectancy. Secondly, I generally donate "used" gear to people interested hiking. I wouldn't want to give them an item that fails on first outing.

Reference water weight. I often start the day, on normal type trips, with as much as 3 quarts of water. My rational for this is that it actually saves me time vs stopping 1-2 times during the day to filter. By the time you stop, filter, fiddle-fart around with this and that, you could have been down the trail half a mile or more. Plus, water weight isn't constant so you could actually go through CO_Bob's entire graph of the law of diminishing returns in one day. I have also referenced this in previous posts. The law of diminishing returns reference pack weight that is.

[colorado_rob]

Nalgenes are stronger if they get run over by a truck, but I'm not sure at all they are less likely to break if dropped on a hard surface. Probably the opposite.

How many times has a truck run over your gear? Funny, once in my case. My own truck. Ouch.

Fill an old Nalgene (the lexan type), then fill a gatorade bottle. Climb a ladder and drop both on to concrete from about, say, 10 feet. Then climb higher. see which one breaks first. I tried this with mixed results. But Nalgenes do shatter depending on how they land. Gatorade bottle are more flexible, probably less likely to shatter, though I have broken one in a drop test.

But why is this strength/breakage even important? Who cares if every once in a while one of your bottles fails? Mine never have, ever.

[DownEaster]

... the absolute silliest thing I see out there is carrying a relatively heavy item that has a cheap and lighter alternative "just because". The classic is those ridiculous 6.7 ounce Nalgene bottles that I still see all over the place. Yikes! Three of those weighs one pound more than three gatorade (or other drink) bottles. WHY do people still carry those things?
My standard for carrying water is a couple of quart Gatorade bottles held to my pack straps with elastic cord loop: this makes getting a drink convenient, and moves the carried gear CoG forward. But I purposely ordered a 1L Nalgene bottle just recently. I'll be starting on the AT in a month (still Winter), and I want to be able to pour boiling water into the bottle, stuff the bottle into a wool sock, and have a foot warmer in my sleeping bag. You can't do that with Gatorade bottles. (Well, actually you can, but only about twice. And being ~1 use away from melting a hole in the thing and dumping HOT water all over the place doesn't appeal.)

[blw2]

Yeah DW, there sure is a lot of Food Fear on the trail, some sort of base-animal-instinct fear of starving to death or something. Or dying of thirst.

your graph is interesting food for thought, even if only anecdotal....

Your comment about food fear reminds me of something.
I used to travel a lot for work, visiting paper mills. Never a consistent schedule, consistent places to eat.....often eating food form gas stations at all sorts of odd hours.... fried chicken and home fries, or all manners of junk food. Usually though we'd end up a decent, even if not great, restaurant for lunch.
Still, I'd find myself loading up at the hotel breakfast, eating enough calories for the day... in hind site because I didn't know if I'd have a decent lunch or not....then I'd load up at lunch because I didn't know if I'd get out for dinner before everything closed. then I'd end up going out for a nice dinner and a few beers
It was all "food fear"!

[AllDownhillFromHere]

...It was all "food fear"!

Said no one who was hungry.

[colorado_rob]

You can't do that with Gatorade bottles. (Well, actually you can, but only about twice. And being ~1 use away from melting a hole in the thing and dumping HOT water all over the place doesn't appeal.) Just for the record, I do this repeatedly, without a problem BUT I do temper the water just a tad by pouring a few ounces of cold water in first, followed by the hot water. I don't suggest anyone else do this in the field, but consider testing this at home. Then again, I mostly use hot water bottles at high altitudes where water boils at 190 or less, haven't tested this at the low AT altitudes.

[Dogwood]

... the absolute silliest thing I see out there is carrying a relatively heavy item that has a cheap and lighter alternative "just because". The classic is those ridiculous 6.7 ounce Nalgene bottles that I still see all over the place. Yikes! Three of those weighs one pound more than three gatorade (or other drink) bottles. WHY do people still carry those things?


This goes back to the biased cultural and backpacking marketing theory being sold, and assumed is correct, that isn't questioned that a Nalgene or higher priced bottle, an often up to $15 or more item, another purchase, is needed to save kit wt and completes the competent backpacker picture when an already possibly purchased $1 lighter wt alternative such as a used or discarded Gatorade or water bottle does fine. It's another example of the societal assumption that achieving a kit wt reducing goal is about throwing money and more money and more money at the goal is the best, only, or first way to approach it.

I'd like to hear how you ran over your Nalgene though. :)

[DownEaster]

Just for the record, I do this repeatedly, without a problem BUT I do temper the water just a tad by pouring a few ounces of cold water in first, followed by the hot water. I don't suggest anyone else do this in the field, but consider testing this at home. Then again, I mostly use hot water bottles at high altitudes where water boils at 190 or less, haven't tested this at the low AT altitudes.
My back patio is about 20' above sea level. I haven't tempered the water. The point is to have as much stored heat as possible to sleep comfortably through the night. I figure I could get a warmer sleeping bag for about an extra 6-8 ounces and an extra $300, then have to swap that for the lighter bag after the Smokies. Or I could just carry a 6 ounce Nalgene bottle and have both a hot water bottle and a container in which I can mix flavored drinks. Not only is the Nalgene bottle proof against boiling water, it won't retain flavors. Gatorage bottles taste like the original electrolyte drink long after that's drunk.

[colorado_rob]

My back patio is about 20' above sea level. I haven't tempered the water. The point is to have as much stored heat as possible to sleep comfortably through the night. I figure I could get a warmer sleeping bag for about an extra 6-8 ounces and an extra $300, then have to swap that for the lighter bag after the Smokies. Or I could just carry a 6 ounce Nalgene bottle and have both a hot water bottle and a container in which I can mix flavored drinks. Not only is the Nalgene bottle proof against boiling water, it won't retain flavors. Gatorage bottles taste like the original electrolyte drink long after that's drunk.Fair enough on most of what you said, but Gatorade bottle do NOT retain flavor if rinsed thoroughly. At all. Not sure where you get that. At least get the slightly lighter Polyethylene Nalgene.

[Leo L.]

I'm with rob at the water bottle topic. Never got the idea behind purchasing a dediacted water bottle that just adds weight and cost when the whole world is stuck-full of free perfect quality PET water bottles.
The material PET is perfect for this use, its a better variation of PE.
Not only is a PET bottle free of charge, its way lighter than a Nalgene (or whatever you may chose to buy).
And the PET bottle is way more capable than the Nalgene:
You can squeeze and twist the empty PET down to a fraction of its size, store it (several of it) in the pack with minimum space requiered, and inflate it by blowing up by mouth if needed.
You can even boil water in a PET bottle by placing it straight into the embers of a campfire (tried and tested myself).

There is one reason why I switched from free PET to dedicated industrial bottles for desert hikes:
When carrying 5 or 6 bottles in the pack, the standard round PET bottles slip and slide around and never form a nice pack shape.
The industrial bottles I'm using now are square shaped and fit way better into the pack.

[KCNC]

I just did some calculations on pack weight, inspired by an off-line conversation.

I look to optimize weight, value, and comfort/convenience, so crossing from "light" to "ultra light" items has to be economically compelling (and can't ignore durability/serviceability.)

I think $10-$12 an ounce is a bargain. $20 an ounce might be a bit much for now, but if I continue my slim-down that might be reasonable in the future. $50 an ounce would probably be a bit painful without some other benefit attached.

But when the pack is closed up the difference between a 16 lb base and an 18 lb base is less than 1% of my current total down-the-trail weight. If I'm going for longer than about ten days I'll drop two pounds without much hassle, bringing me to a net "zero." :banana

My goal is to have a fully loaded (defined by 5 days of food @2 lbs/day and 2L water) pack weight of less than 15% of my body mass.

If i get back to my high school freshman football weight I'll need to trim a couple of pounds from my gear somehow, until then I've got plenty of weight that I can drop that won't cost me a cent! :D

In summary, I think that discussions of pack weight vs. body weight are much more meaningful than just discussing pack weights. Larger organisms require more fuel and larger "stuff" - so their loads will naturally be heavier. All other things being equal, someone 6-2 225 carrying 30 lbs is going to have an easier time than someone who is 5-2 120 carrying 20 lbs.

[Cheyou]

Having less weight on my back is much more fun.

Thom

[Coffee]

I've never had a Smartwater bottle fail me and I usually only replace them when they get super grungy. One great thing about the Smartwater bottle with the flip top nozzle is that it is a perfect fit to backflush a Sawyer filter which means I can save the weight of the dedicated backflush tool. A win-win.

[Venchka]

I'm with rob at the water bottle topic. Never got the idea behind purchasing a dediacted water bottle that just adds weight and cost when the whole world is stuck-full of free perfect quality PET water bottles.
The material PET is perfect for this use, its a better variation of PE.
Not only is a PET bottle free of charge, its way lighter than a Nalgene (or whatever you may chose to buy).
And the PET bottle is way more capable than the Nalgene:
You can squeeze and twist the empty PET down to a fraction of its size, store it (several of it) in the pack with minimum space requiered, and inflate it by blowing up by mouth if needed.
You can even boil water in a PET bottle by placing it straight into the embers of a campfire (tried and tested myself).

There is one reason why I switched from free PET to dedicated industrial bottles for desert hikes:
When carrying 5 or 6 bottles in the pack, the standard round PET bottles slip and slide around and never form a nice pack shape.
The industrial bottles I'm using now are square shaped and fit way better into the pack.
Leo,
The Volvic brand water, from France, comes in 1 and 1.5 liter SQUARE bottles with rounded corners.
Wayne

[Venchka]

I've never had a Smartwater bottle fail me and I usually only replace them when they get super grungy. One great thing about the Smartwater bottle with the flip top nozzle is that it is a perfect fit to backflush a Sawyer filter which means I can save the weight of the dedicated backflush tool. A win-win.
I wish the industry would put the push-pull caps on the larger size bottles. I don’t like having to buy the smaller bottles to get the push-pull caps.
Wayne

[Leo L.]

Yeah, when I decided its time to go from round to square bottles I found it very difficult to get 1.5lt square bottles, and only two brands I found so far, one of which was Volvic.
Living in a small country, and then behind the mountains, I have to stretch to what I can get - which isn't much.
Had to import a set of Volvic from Germany and used it for several trips with some success.
Unfortunately the thin-walled PET fits better to round shapes than to square (or anything else with corners), the Volvic bottles didn't live long.
So I started another search and found a manufacturer of square shaped industrial bottles of 1.5lt (the bottles you would buy paint thinner and similar in) in Swizerland and the guys were really generous and sent me a sample set of 10 bottles for free.
Which hopefully will serve me for the rest of my hiking career.

[evyck da fleet]

I try to think outside the pack. Full disclosure as a solo hiker who knows very little I tend to carry an extra day of food and an extra liter of water on my trips to give me added flexibility in choosing where to stop and what water sources to use. How do I offset those 4-5 pounds and what does it cost? I get in better shape before the hike starts so I can see more. It costs nothing and almost anyone over 30 has at least ten extra pounds they could lose.