View Full Version : How do you count your weight?
Sidewinder
05-30-2008, 20:33
I have been reading different treads concerning pack weights. Some posters state exactly what they are carrying, winter or summer equip, clothing, sleep system, cooking system, rain gear, personal items and state the exact weight down to the ounce. Some state their big four weight (pack, sleep bag, sleep pad, tent/tarp/hammock).
My question doesn't concern equipment weight, but when someone asks what's your pack weight do you include your food and water weight? Food alone will vary from trip to trip and day to day depending on time of year, how many days you're out and/or days between resupply and what you personally need to eat.
thanks in advance
4eyedbuzzard
05-30-2008, 20:53
Most people state their pack weight without food or water and without the first layer of clothes they normally wear while hiking(shorts, tee shirt, pair of socks, footwear, etc.)
Some will offer a "skin out" weight that also includes the clothes they would normally hike in.
Both of these can vary obviously due to the location and season they hike in. EVen the same hiker will likely carry a warmer sleeping bag and clothing in NH than they would in VA during the same time of year. A lot of thru hikers start with a 20 deg sleeping bag, change it out to a 40 in VA and then go back to the 20 in NH. Lots of little gear swaps/changes happen depending upon season and location, so pack weights are rarely static.
There is the notion of "base weight" which includes all non-replenishable items. So base weight generally includes everything but food, water and fuel. As you say, these items can be quite significant and can and will vary all over the map.
(It gets a bit hazy whether "base weight" includes items like toothpaste and sun-block lotion but now you're really picking nits. I say yes...)
The "big four" measurement is significant, because those four items generally are a) absolutely essential for all long-distance hiking endeavors, and b) a significant portion of the weight, bulk and expense in any long-distance hiker's pack.
There's also the notion of "skin-out" weight which includes not only the pack, but (worn) clothing, footwear and trekking poles.
I highly recommend this (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/BookSearch/results.asp?ATH=Don+Ladigan) book by Don Ladigan if you're interested this kind of stuff.
Sidewinder
05-30-2008, 21:11
I forgot to mention base weight. Skin weight is new term to me, but weight worn is weight carried, at least to me it is.
The reason I was asking about the food and water weight is I was recently asked what my pack weight was. I answered 22-23 lbs, the guy responded WOW that's a lot of gear for this time of year. Later I got to thinking he didn't know the 22-23 included 3-days of food and 2L of water. I've very comfortable with the weight I carry and was just curious about how others state their pack weight. maybe I should state my weight plus food and water .
Blissful
05-30-2008, 21:12
If someone on the trail asks weight, I give the weight which includes food and water.
22-23 lbs. is darned good (IMO) if that's the total load.
kayak karl
05-30-2008, 21:18
I have been reading different treads concerning pack weights. Some posters state exactly what they are carrying, winter or summer equip, clothing, sleep system, cooking system, rain gear, personal items and state the exact weight down to the ounce. Some state their big four weight (pack, sleep bag, sleep pad, tent/tarp/hammock).
My question doesn't concern equipment weight, but when someone asks what's your pack weight do you include your food and water weight? Food alone will vary from trip to trip and day to day depending on time of year, how many days you're out and/or days between resupply and what you personally need to eat.
thanks in advance
push come to shove, its should be what you are huffing up the hill:) food, water and gear.
otherwise it just a UL weeny weight #, dont worry. can YOU carry it? i started with a 56 lb pack FULL. now down to less with new gear, but then i lost 30 lbs physically. im at zero right now:D
seriously, stop weighing your pack. start carrying your pack. it will all work out:)
hike you own hike. have fun:sun
KK
Sidewinder
05-30-2008, 21:18
Terripin- That is everything I carry in or on my pack for a three day trip. Not included clothing/shoes worn or trekking poles.
Blissful- I have always included food and water weight too.
Sidewinder
05-30-2008, 21:22
push come to shove, its should be what you are huffing up the hill:) food, water and gear.
otherwise it just a UL weeny weight #, dont worry. can YOU carry it? i started with a 56 lb pack FULL. now down to less with new gear, but then i lost 30 lbs physically. im at zero right now:D
seriously, stop weighing your pack. start carrying your pack. it will all work out:)
hike you own hike. have fun:sun
KK
I'm not worried, just curious, as I said I'm comfortable with my pack weight.
seriously, stop weighing your pack. start carrying your pack. it will all work out:)
Sorry, I disagree. It makes a difference. I think lots of hikes and hikers fail because of excessive pack weight. (And yes, I'm sure that hikes have failed from overly-light packs as well.)
fiddlehead
05-30-2008, 21:24
you put your pack on, step on a scale, remember what it says, then you take your pack off, step on the scale again and subtract this number from the 1st one, That is your pack weight.
Why make it any more difficult than that?
Why make it any more difficult than that?
No good reason at all, but then you wouldn't be able to make Excel spreadsheets of the weights of your pack contents. :D
Tipi Walter
05-30-2008, 21:54
Sorry, I disagree. It makes a difference. I think lots of hikes and hikers fail because of excessive pack weight. (And yes, I'm sure that hikes have failed from overly-light packs as well.)
You've covered yourself pretty good with both points, but I've seen most in-trip cancelations due to ULers trying to get thru a surprise winter storm with flimsy gear and bugging out.
And fiddlehead is right, everything should be counted as you hit the trailhead on the first day. On a 10 to 15 day trip, duh, first day packweight will be much higher than last day. All of my trips are with a 60-80 pound pack, all depending on food choices and book readings. And to be honest, I never actually weigh my pack, well once I did back in 2003 but that was a fluke. I was preparing for a 12 day trip and had a 75 pound Terraplane strapped up and ready to go. All pack weights for me are estimates related to that 75 load of long ago. I can tell now if a pack is "comfy and light"(around 50-60 pounds), "heavy"(65-75 pounds), or "dangerously sagging"(80-90 pounds).
To me, weighing a pack is about like using a thermometer, it's playing a numbers game and no trip should be defined by a mere number. Numbers only look good in the trail journal, the rest of the time you react to real-world conditions like low temps or pack weight or wind speed thru a feeling heart covered by a willing body comfortable with being out on the trail carrying weight.
kayak karl
05-30-2008, 22:03
Sorry, I disagree. It makes a difference. I think lots of hikes and hikers fail because of excessive pack weight. (And yes, I'm sure that hikes have failed from overly-light packs as well.)
SO, hikes fail with light packs and over weight packs? so therefore you are not sure if the weight is the cause of a failed hike?? is that your answer?? then what is the pack weight that will succeed?? does it matter what the gear is? we are only talking weight.
then put it on and do short weekend hikes:-? test your gear [NOT THE WEIGHT)and make lists to +/-. its a no brainer. HIKES FAIL because people dont TEST their gear. NOT because they didn't STEP on a scale
hike your own hike
And fiddlehead is right, everything should be counted as you hit the trailhead on the first day. On a 10 to 15 day trip, duh, first day packweight will be much higher than last day. All of my trips are with a 60-80 pound pack, all depending on food choices and book readings.
LOL, this is a true story: when I headed sobo from Baxter Park in Sept. '90 I probably had a good 55-60 lbs. in my Camp Trails pack, figuring I might need upwards of 10 days to make it to Monson (I made it in 7.) Ward Leonard and I had a little chat in the shelter at Daicey Pond. Ward took one look at my pack and said (in a voice dripping with scorn and contempt...) "You ain't no thru hiker."
Honest, I haven't seen many true ultra-lighters on the trail. Ward was the first I'd ever met, and I really haven't met many more.
It needs to be said, also, that your style of hiking isn't thru-hiking. No value judgment there, but it's a different gig. Very few thru-hikers spend 10-15 days in the woods at a time.
SO, hikes fail with light packs and over weight packs? so therefore you are not sure if the weight is the cause of a failed hike?? is that your answer?? then what is the pack weight that will succeed?? does it matter what the gear is? we are only talking weight.
then put it on and do short weekend hikes:-? test your gear [NOT THE WEIGHT)and make lists to +/-. its a no brainer. HIKES FAIL because people dont TEST their gear. NOT because they didn't STEP on a scale
hike your own hike
Hikes fail for all sorts of reasons. But it can't hurt to know how much weight you're carrying, nor can it hurt to minimize that weight, within reason. I concur 110% that there's no substitute for practice and experience -- you don't need to shout, 'cuz you're preaching to the choir, here.
Tipi Walter
05-30-2008, 22:19
SO, hikes fail with light packs and over weight packs? so therefore you are not sure if the weight is the cause of a failed hike?? is that your answer?? then what is the pack weight that will succeed?? does it matter what the gear is? we are only talking weight.
then put it on and do short weekend hikes:-? test your gear [NOT THE WEIGHT)and make lists to +/-. its a no brainer. HIKES FAIL because people dont TEST their gear. NOT because they didn't STEP on a scale
hike your own hike
Many backpackers are weekend warrior types, and though their gear might be partly responsible, I've seen most of these backpackers bug out not necessarily because of their gear but because of rough weather. Most "normal" usual weight backpackers carry decent enough tents and clothing, even hats and gloves in late spring/fall, but when they come in at a trailhead at 1500 feet and get to their night's destination at 5000 feet and see a wind-whipping blizzard, they might set up quickly but often they don't last long and leave out in the morning. A long rainstorm will also push backpackers to get out early.
Tipi Walter
05-30-2008, 22:27
LOL, this is a true story: when I headed sobo from Baxter Park in Sept. '90 I probably had a good 55-60 lbs. in my Camp Trails pack, figuring I might need upwards of 10 days to make it to Monson (I made it in 7.) Ward Leonard and I had a little chat in the shelter at Daicey Pond. Ward took one look at my pack and said (in a voice dripping with scorn and contempt...) "You ain't no thru hiker."
Honest, I haven't seen many true ultra-lighters on the trail. Ward was the first I'd ever met, and I really haven't met many more.
It needs to be said, also, that your style of hiking isn't thru-hiking. No value judgment there, but it's a different gig. Very few thru-hikers spend 10-15 days in the woods at a time.
I wonder what Ward Leonard would've made of Norman Clyde, the Sierra Nevada mountaineer and backpacker who routinely carried 90 pound packs for months at a time? He used an old style wooden pack frame(with a trump line)and hauled a small library of the classics along with extra leather boots and a cast iron skillet. But I get your point, he "lived out", whereas AT types tend to be passing thru from town to town.
I think the UL craze is due in part to the specialized nature of hiking the AT. Frequent resupply will always result in a lighter pack, ergo the frenzy then to see how light a person can go while depending on the promise of quick resupply. Just a side-thought.
I wonder what Ward Leonard would've made of Norman Clyde, the Sierra Nevada mountaineer and backpacker who routinely carried 90 pound packs for months at a time? He used an old style wooden pack frame(with a trump line)and hauled a small library of the classics along with extra leather boots and a cast iron skillet. But I get your point, he "lived out", whereas AT types tend to be passing thru from town to town.
I think the UL craze is due in part to the specialized nature of hiking the AT. Frequent resupply will always result in a lighter pack, ergo the frenzy then to see how light a person can go while depending on the promise of quick resupply. Just a side-thought.
It's not a side-thought at all. Ultra-light is for folks who want or "need" to make miles. Which happens more or less by definition in an AT/PCT/CDT through-hike. ISTM it's a relatively new phenomenon, though I've been flamed for saying that. Ray Jardine comes to mind as the great grand-daddy of the movement.
I'm sure Norman Clyde didn't pull off 30+ mile days on the AT, for days on end. That was Ward's trip. He passed me nobo at Roan, and boasted that he'd left Springer "10 days ago." It had taken me 30 days to cover the same distance.
I really don't have a clue on how widespread the practice of UL really is. From what I've seen -- not so much. But definitely a downward trend [in pack weights] in my lifetime, and in the last 15-20 years in particular -- at least among "serious" long-distance hikers.
bigcranky
05-31-2008, 08:29
I really don't have a clue on how widespread the practice of UL really is. From what I've seen -- not so much. But definitely a downward trend [in pack weights] in my lifetime, and in the last 15-20 years in particular -- at least among "serious" long-distance hikers.
I think the serious UL types are few and far between, but I do see that average pack weights have gotten lighter in the last few years. I think much of that comes from newer materials and designs which are influenced by the UL fringe. It used to be very hard to find a tent or a pack that weighed less than 7 or 8 pounds in a mainstream outfitter; now it's easy to find both in the 3-pound range.
That said, there still seems to be quite the bias against light- or UL-backpackers in general. I'm no UL'er, and I don't think my pack is particularly small, but I still get negative comments from other hikers on the size of my pack and/or the weight that I am carrying. But it seems apparent to other hikers that I'm gonna die out there....
To get back on topic, my personal preference is to pay attention to my base weight when planning (everything in my pack except food and water), knowing that I'll be adding ten or more pounds of food, water, and fuel to that base weight when I hit the trail.
4eyedbuzzard
05-31-2008, 10:17
A couple of comments:
A 60 to 80 lb load would have been considered extreme even 40 years ago. Even back then everyone was trying to stay under 40lbs and/or 25% of body weight. I think the most I ever carried back then was just under 50lbs. with about 7 days worth of food through GSMNP - and even then I could have left some of it behind. Going out to live in the wilderness for extended periods doesn't represent the equipment requirements needed by the vast majority of recreational or even thru-hikers. If someone wants to read War and Peace or the collective works of John Muir while holed up in a tent waiting out a blizzard, fine. But it just doesn't represent the reality of what most are out there for.
A lot of hikers/backpackers have absolutely no desire to pit themselves against the very worst mother nature can throw at them. They're out to have fun mostly in benign 3 season conditions. While some enjoy the challenge of surviving extreme conditions, it isn't for everyone, and the personal choice to do so shouldn't reflect upon them in some sort of judgment by others. Personally, I've done it several times in the past and just have no desire to prove to myself that I can do it again. And to be equipped to do so requires carrying a lot more gear than is necessary for trips in less extreme conditions. I'm just out for a nice hike and camp, not a survival challenge. I'm not talking just the normal rain, snow, wind, temps expected for the locale and season, but truly serious weather conditions. If the weather turns that bad - hurricane, blizzard, etc. - I'm bugging out or better yet not leaving the trailhead. No way I'm intentionally heading out into the NH mountains to face a blizzard - with any amount of gear. Been there, done that, as a younger man. I've seen really experienced people have to get rescued by S&R. No person or their equipment is that good that they can't have equipment failure or have an accident. That's just arrogance.
There are more options available equipment wise than ever before. You can choose a 3 lb tent that will keep you sheltered and dry in most 3 season conditions vs a 6 lb tent that is pretty much bombproof. Same goes for packs, and sleeping bags, and even clothes and stoves. Most hikers simply don't need bombproof gear to survive the absolute worst, and also therfore the pack to carry it all in. They simply aren't going to be out in conditions that warrant either carrying the extra weight or spending the extra money.
Aside from the above there are other reasons not to carry "traditional" size loads. My personal one is medical. After three back injuries, I simply can't. The most I can safely carry without putting myself at increased risk for another disk injury is about 25, maybe 28 lbs tops. In order to carry 3 to 4 days food and water(roughly 10 lbs) I have to limit my base weight to 15 - 17 lbs or so. So I don't have a lot of choices here - go fairly light or don't hike. Now I don't consider my gear truly UL, but it's definitely on the lighter side than many. And I don't do it to make as many miles as possible. I do it simply to get out there. And I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of other people out there who also try to go as light as possible due to physical limitations.
Anyway, HYOH. Definitely carry what you need, and pay careful attention and choose wisely as to what you want. Know the conditions you'll be hiking into, and both your own limitations and those of your equipment before setting out. And have fun.
I find UL backpacking more enjoyable than heavy backpacking. It also reduces the chance of injury. Just did 3 days on the Benton MacKaye Trail. Weighed around 16lbs. Was comfortable in camp, and had food left over.
Good post, 4eyes. I really admire Tipi for the sort of hiking/camping he does, particularly because he's so far out of the "thru-hiker" mainstream. This notion of a thru-hike being a series of 3-4 day hikes between town stops -- it does detract from the wilderness experience, for sure. In August I'm going to head out for a 100-mile trek out west, and it'll be the first time I've done a stretch that long since 1990. I remember feeling quite amazed and awed. But I was 18 years younger.
Footslogger
05-31-2008, 10:32
How do I count my weight ??
Well, I know the individual weights of all my pack contents and the advertised (empty) weight of my pack so it's pretty easy math.
But in the end, when I talk about total pack weight I refer to the actual scale measured weight of my loaded pack.
If I say I am carrying a 26lb pack I am saying that I can hang my pack on a scale and the needle will point at the 26lb level.
'Slogger
There is the notion of "base weight" which includes all non-replenishable items. So base weight generally includes everything but food, water and fuel. As you say, these items can be quite significant and can and will vary all over the map.
(It gets a bit hazy whether "base weight" includes items like toothpaste and sun-block lotion but now you're really picking nits. I say yes...)
The "big four" measurement is significant, because those four items generally are a) absolutely essential for all long-distance hiking endeavors, and b) a significant portion of the weight, bulk and expense in any long-distance hiker's pack.
There's also the notion of "skin-out" weight which includes not only the pack, but (worn) clothing, footwear and trekking poles.
That covers it very well. I've always considered base weight as everything in the pack (except food, fuel, and water), but not the basic layer of clothes worn. In other words, base weight can't be reduced by calling a jacket for possible colder conditions part of the worn clothing.
4eyedbuzzard
05-31-2008, 11:02
Good post, 4eyes. I really admire Tipi for the sort of hiking/camping he does, particularly because he's so far out of the "thru-hiker" mainstream. This notion of a thru-hike being a series of 3-4 day hikes between town stops -- it does detract from the wilderness experience, for sure. In August I'm going to head out for a 100-mile trek out west, and it'll be the first time I've done a stretch that long since 1990. I remember feeling quite amazed and awed. But I was 18 years younger.
I absolutely admire Tipi for his wilderness style and skill. I did some stuff close to what he does a few times many years ago. And I'm sure he's a lot better at it than I ever was. It's a lot closer to a wilderness expedition than normal backpacking/hiking. I just want to point out how unique, and detached in many ways, it is from most hiking. He goes out for over a week at a clip(maybe two) and puts himself in situations where there honestly may not be a way out. So he carries the gear he determines he needs to be comfortable. God bless him.
I agree on the thru-hike being mostly a series of 3 - 4 day hikes. But even way back it always was to a great extent. MacKaye's original plan was that the trail would provide a "wilderness experience", an illusion to a great degree given how close it was routed to towns and roads, and that it would link collective farm/work camps about a week's hike apart - the camps never happened, but the trail did. The biggest stretch without available resupply has pretty much always been the 100 mile wilderness.
100 miles out west huh? There's no GD oxygen out there on top of them thar mountains you know! :eek: ;)
Tipi Walter
05-31-2008, 11:58
:)
Good post, 4eyes. I really admire Tipi for the sort of hiking/camping he does, particularly because he's so far out of the "thru-hiker" mainstream. This notion of a thru-hike being a series of 3-4 day hikes between town stops -- it does detract from the wilderness experience, for sure. In August I'm going to head out for a 100-mile trek out west, and it'll be the first time I've done a stretch that long since 1990. I remember feeling quite amazed and awed. But I was 18 years younger.
I'm interested in your gear list partly but mostly the amount of days you'll be out. I figure you won't be pulling 10 miles per day for 10 days, probably more like 15-20 miles per day for 5-6 days? If it was me, I'd probably be pulling 7 miles per day for 14-15 days:)
:)
I'm interested in your gear list partly but mostly the amount of days you'll be out. I figure you won't be pulling 10 miles per day for 10 days, probably more like 15-20 miles per day for 5-6 days? If it was me, I'd probably be pulling 7 miles per day for 14-15 days:)
My 26 yo. nephew and I will be doing "section P" of the PCT, and I'm tentatively planning 15 miles per day. From what I can tell, the PCT is quite well graded compared to the AT. Day one of this hike is a 4000 foot climb, but over 15 miles or so. It'll be August so we should have 10+ hours per day to hike in.
The gear list for me will be essentially the same as what I used on the AT last summer. "Base" weight of 16 lbs. or so, plus lots of water (3 liters, at least) and 7-8 days worth of food (let's say, ~12 lbs. apiece.) So that's 35 lbs on the back, more or less, at the start of the hike.
modiyooch
05-31-2008, 13:01
My beef is when people quote the weight of their backpack empty. Does that include all the necessary attachments that they add in order to carry stuff?? Some might look at my external frame and scoff, but it holds everything, easily accessible, and dry.
Appalachian Tater
05-31-2008, 13:06
I think usually when people ask you "How much does your pack weigh?" they want to know the actual weight that you have on your back including food, water, etc. If it is another hiker you can specify "total weight" or "with food and water and fuel".
The whole game of comparing base weights without food, water, and fuel is only useful to the hiker whose weight it is because those variables depend so much on the individual's hiking style.
My beef is when people quote the weight of their backpack empty. Does that include all the necessary attachments that they add in order to carry stuff?? Some might look at my external frame and scoff, but it holds everything, easily accessible, and dry.
You shouldn't need "attachments." Loose gear flapping around outside the pack is bad news, regardless of what kinda pack you've got. With my Camp Trails pack, some large items ride outside the main compartment, but the only attachments are a pair of nylon straps weighing maybe... 3 oz total.
i no that my first hike in the end a success. but me and my wife almost turned around and went home but we found our campsite and chilled. but man were we were truly feeling the burden over pack weight 55-60#'s. we lightened our loads to 30-35#s and now we really can truly enjoy our hike.
for warm weather:
besides what's in my pack or attached to my pack, I have another 6 pounds of weight that includes clothing, boots, trekking poles, hats, reading glasses and anything carried in my pockets.
Panzer
Bear Cables
06-01-2008, 16:02
I think the serious UL types are few and far between, but I do see that average pack weights have gotten lighter in the last few years. I think much of that comes from newer materials and designs which are influenced by the UL fringe. It used to be very hard to find a tent or a pack that weighed less than 7 or 8 pounds in a mainstream outfitter; now it's easy to find both in the 3-pound range.
I can attest to that . My first backpacking tent was 8lbs. then my spitfire was 3lbs 11oz and now my tarptent is 1lb 8 oz. Bags are getting lighter and lighter as well. You can say the same about stoves too. With the lighter gear I have whittled the weight of my pack from 48 lbs 8 years ago to 29 now and thats fully loaded with food for 4 days and 2L. of water .
Blue Jay
06-01-2008, 18:44
My question doesn't concern equipment weight, but when someone asks what's your pack weight do you include your food and water weight?
I'm on my 4th completion and no one has ever asked me this vital, world shaking, question. I am going out tomorrow and seek out some anal hikers and see if I can get them to ask. Thank you for showing me how neglected I have been.:confused:
I get asked the pack weight question about once every other day. What's with everyone and what my pack weighs. I tell them "It weighs what it weighs, equipment, food and water, everything." Why should I have to justify what I carry? I DON'T!
By the way my big four weighs 6lb-8 oz
Bear Cables
06-01-2008, 21:21
I'm on my 4th completion and no one has ever asked me this vital, world shaking, question. I am going out tomorrow and seek out some anal hikers and see if I can get them to ask. Thank you for showing me how neglected I have been.:confused:
I can understand the need to know what is meant by pack weight. For some hikers wanting to lighten up the term gets thrown around alot. When I first ask about lightening my load I was told from some that their base wt. was 10 counting just pack, bag shelter others gave more weight and detail. When i was told that someones pack wt. was 10 lbs. I said WOW how'd you do that? Then I understood it was just the main 3.
So, I'm confused. Should include or not the 12-pack of beer that I carry in my pack weight when asked? Seems like it falls under the category of "food", but people seem to look at me funny when I tell them my pack only weighs 20 lbs.
4eyedbuzzard
06-01-2008, 22:13
I think you have to add the empty weight of the cans, under the stove parts category.
I think you have to add the empty weight of the cans, under the stove parts category.
Yeah, I suppose I could open up a alcohol stove shop, huh?
bigcranky
06-02-2008, 07:43
I get asked the pack weight question about once every other day. What's with everyone and what my pack weighs. I tell them "It weighs what it weighs, equipment, food and water, everything." Why should I have to justify what I carry? I DON'T!
By the way my big four weighs 6lb-8 oz
Well, there's your answer (and mine.) People see a small pack, they ask what it weighs, then they attack you for carrying a small pack. ("You're not prepared, you're gonna freeze/starve/die out there, you're just going to beg other hikers for things you should be carrying," etc.) I'm a pretty laid back hiker, but I get a lot of pent-up hostility directed at my pack. The funny thing is, I'm hardly an ultralight weenie.
People see a big pack, they already know what it weighs, so they don't bother asking.
There is the notion of "base weight" which includes all non-replenishable items. So base weight generally includes everything but food, water and fuel.
I would agree, but would add that "base weight" should include all empty food, water and fuel containers. Anyhow, the way I come up with "base weight" is on my computer using my EXCEL spread sheet. I have every piece of gear I own recorded with the weight of each. I list the weight of empty containers on this list. (Except I list my toiletries such as toothpaste, shampoo, etc as the full weight. I don't know why, that's just the way I do it.)
Panzer
4eyedbuzzard
06-03-2008, 14:55
I would agree, but would add that "base weight" should include all empty food, water and fuel containers. Anyhow, the way I come up with "base weight" is on my computer using my EXCEL spread sheet. I have every piece of gear I own recorded with the weight of each. I list the weight of empty containers on this list. (Except I list my toiletries such as toothpaste, shampoo, etc as the full weight. I don't know why, that's just the way I do it.)
Panzer
I just put everything in the pack and weigh it. Too much culmulative error f you weigh everything seperately - you get base weight creep. And we can't have that, can we?:rolleyes:
I would agree, but would add that "base weight" should include all empty food, water and fuel containers.
Our definitions agree. Obviously, the containers themselves are not replenishable. That's why gram weenies like me carry their water in platy bags and/or cheap (disposable) soda bottles instead of Nalgenes. :D
ShelterLeopard
06-03-2008, 22:52
I've always included everything but water.