View Full Version : Gear Weight vs Quality
1stCavSoldier
10-15-2006, 02:22
I am in the Army where the ruggedness (quality) of gear is factored before weight. Thus, my "work rucksack" is usually 80 to 100 lbs without food or water. But I know that I can count on my gear for the most part to not fail in time of need.
So I am wondering what hikers look at when buying gear for the trail.
Duriabilty, Price, Weight
1)I need it to be durable and last, things are cheaper if i don't have to replace them all the time.
2)I'm in college, I can't spend hundreds on lighter equipment.
3)I'm more worried about my personal weight than my pack weight. (besides isn't 35-40lbs alot lighter than average weights 15 or so years ago?)(also i spent a pretty penny on my gregory deva 60 which has a great suspension system for heavier loads, also its very durable, I'm rough on equipment, and after my 2month section it hardly had any wear on it besides dirt)
Hanna
The General
10-15-2006, 05:13
After 22 Yrs in the British Army as an Infantryman and being used to carrying my world on my back or draped around my body, it takes some dicipline to go against all you know about gear and start to lighten your load. When your used to packing gear "just in case" and when you consider anything under 50 Lbs as Ultralight, you have to take on an almost alian mindset to overcome the how much should I be carrying issue.
As far as packs and gear go buy the best you can afford even if it is secondhand as long as its in good shape. lighten your load by carefull thought on gear and multi use items be realistic. check out other hikers compare notes and dont be afraid to go lighter. Though I admit the latter does take some getting used to and goes against all that has been beaten into you.
When I weighed in at the begining of my 2004 Thru I was at 78lbs including 5days food and 2qaurts of water. when I finished I was down to 48lbs with the same food and water. So by then I was "Ultralight" in my eyes and not far short of slackpacking. When I next Thru in 2008 I WILL be lighter still, having taken on board all the lessons and advice I learned in 2004. I'm looking forward to it.
Si Thee in 2008
My first multi-day hike was in the summer of 1991, before the advent of "ultralight" gear. I did a six day, five night hike on the Long Trail in the summer with a pack weight of 35 lbs. all food included, First need purifier, full MSR Alpine stainless cookset, Whisperlite stove, North Face Mayfly tent, Gregory Shasta pack, etc. I've never been one for carrying unnecessary gear, and my gear has only gotten lighter since then. Sure, it may not last 20 years, but, if I'm only going out for a week a year, I don't have to worry too much about durability. Function is more important, and multiple use gear makes more individual items unnecessary. Even though I am of limited means (self imposed due to personal beliefs), I buy the lightest and most functional gear I can afford.
Just Jeff
10-15-2006, 07:11
...the ruggedness (quality) of gear...
Hehe - funny that you equate ruggedness with quality. I think a high quality piece of gear is the simplest, lightest gear that will do the job. If the job requires a rugged piece of gear, then ruggedness may define quality. But if the job doesn't require a rugged piece of gear, and a silnylon backpack will suffice for an entire thru-hike, then the best quality for my money isn't the same thing as ruggedness.
But lightweight backpacking principles go against everything we learn in the military. Then again, we're not at war when we're just out hiking, and a ripped shoulder strap won't likely lead to casualties.
I picked weight, durability, price.
greentick
10-15-2006, 08:26
... Thus, my "work rucksack" is usually 80 to 100 lbs without food or water...
My best was a Large ALICE weighing in at about 125lbs complete. Makes that first step off the bird a bch on the knee. This was a standard test when first issued an ALICE. Rated for 70lbs when loaded to 125 they were either "a good pack" or they catastrophically decompensated. My body armor/bullet combo weighed more than any backpack with load I've used. The general said it best with back up for all systems. Adds weight. Bullets and batteries. Can't avoid em, add weight. Aid bag. Unless someone gets hurt, you bring out everything you took in. Adds weight.
At this point price rules my purchases, but I've scoured almost everything from outlet sites/sales. I could care less if it's last years model and the color has changed to something more trendy. Nothing like a Gregory Gpack for 47 bucks from campmor.
Cedar Tree
10-15-2006, 09:18
I like this poll, really makes you think. Haven't bought much gear lately, so I tried to think back about earlier gear purchases, mainly the big items, tents, sleeping bags, packs, stoves.... and I think price, weight, durability fits me best. However, functionability, or how well the product actually works, I think is also of great concern. For example, you could buy a poncho that is cheap, light, and durable, but it sucks in my opinion for any use while hiking, be it rain protection or shelter.
Cedar Tree
in my short time of backpacking I find that mid range gear is usually a pretty good investment.I like to have evrything I need when long distant hiking and I dont mind the extra weight.Now I know everyone is different so one could not pack for another persons interest or needs.ky
Kerosene
10-15-2006, 10:33
I'm surprised that my choice of "Weight, Durability, Price" is leading the poll. Backpacking is one of the few things that I spend my discretionary income on in an ongoing attempt to lighten my load. I'm relatively easy on gear, and as a section hiker durability is less important than it might be if I were out for 6 months. With equal weight and performance I'll look to save a buck when I can, but I don't obsess about it. (Then again, I don't tell my wife what I'm spending either!)
Footslogger
10-15-2006, 11:48
I voted WEIGHT, DURABILITY, PRICE ...
But there's an attribute missing that goes before all three of these when I'm looking at new gear, or clothing for that matter.
FUNCTIONALITY
There's a lot of pretty cool stuff out there that is relatively light, reasonably durable and within the range I am willing to pay ...but it's often loaded with features that offer me nothing in terms of useability or funtion.
'Slogger
1stCavSoldier
10-15-2006, 12:20
I voted WEIGHT, DURABILITY, PRICE ...
But there's an attribute missing that goes before all three of these when I'm looking at new gear, or clothing for that matter.
FUNCTIONALITY
There's a lot of pretty cool stuff out there that is relatively light, reasonably durable and within the range I am willing to pay ...but it's often loaded with features that offer me nothing in terms of useability or funtion.
'Slogger
I didn't even think of that one when making the poll. Probably the Army in me, (you carry "it" because that's what you do, who cares if you'll ever use it) I'm glad I don't have to do that in civilian life!
SGT Rock
10-15-2006, 13:16
Weight, function, price. If it isn't durable it better be cheap and replaceable. Also a lot of the lighter gear can be less durable but you can take care of it. And then again some of the cheap stuff is great and lasts a long time - like a Gatorade bottle for water or a Country Time drink mix jar for a cup and bowl. So I don't really worry so much about durability - that is in the eye of the beholder.
Footslogger
10-15-2006, 20:43
I didn't even think of that one when making the poll. Probably the Army in me, (you carry "it" because that's what you do, who cares if you'll ever use it) I'm glad I don't have to do that in civilian life!
=====================================
I hear you ...and if you had asked me that question when I was "IN" ('68-'71 Army Airborne) I would probably would have answered the question differently.
These days I have a "choice" over what I purchase/use and I have years of experience to apply to that process.
'Slogger
Durability and weight together, then price. It can be the lightest but if it doesn't get the job done, then it is just extra weight.
joedannajr
10-16-2006, 07:50
Great Poll. Thanks for querying folks.
As for myself I look for weight first, getting older this seems more important to me. Durability is very important as I'd like my gear to last or atleast be presentable on eBay when I'm finished with it. Finally price, although not having a bottomless bucket of money this is always a consideration.
peter_pan
10-16-2006, 08:21
Weight, durabilty and price....Going light almost always leads to more comfortable experiances....Durability is important, it must match your hiking/camping style....Trailblazers need more durable gear than trail hiker for example...
Pan