View Full Version : Pack weight ratings
v5planet
01-08-2010, 17:12
This is probably a dumb question, but I haven't stumbled past an answer while researching backpacks -- do the weight ratings ("recommended base" "recommended loaded") include the weight of the pack itself, or just what you put in it? Thanks, this will make the calculations much easier!
Wolf - 23000
01-08-2010, 17:37
It include the weight of the pack also.
Wolf
Brain at ULA says that the weight is not included in his packs.
Wolf - 23000
01-08-2010, 17:54
Brain at ULA says that the weight is not included in his packs.
The question that comes to mind is if he is not counting the weight of his pack what else is he not counting. The pack is one of the heaviest peice of equipment a long distance UL hiker should be carrying.
Wolf
v5planet
01-08-2010, 17:54
Brain at ULA says that the weight is not included in his packs.
Yeah, that's what their customer service told me when I just emailed them. Does anyone know is Granite Gear's products are rated with the pack's weight included? It ends up being a little confusing because you read about base weight here in the forums, and of course the pack weight is included, but it would make a lot of sense for a retailer to say how much stuff can be put into their pack rather than what the total system can weigh. *shrugs*
v5planet
01-08-2010, 17:57
The question that comes to mind is if he is not counting the weight of his pack what else is he not counting. The pack is one of the heaviest peice of equipment a long distance UL hiker should be carrying.
Wolf
Please, I'm aware that a pack is a heavy piece of equipment, and I also never said i was aspiring to UL levels of minimalism. I'm just asking a question about pack ratings so I KNOW where and when to count its weight so I'm not underestimating anything, geez.
The question that comes to mind is if he is not counting the weight of his pack what else is he not counting. The pack is one of the heaviest peice of equipment a long distance UL hiker should be carrying.
Wolf
Yea and I'm not really the answer guy for this one, I actually asked the same question not long ago on BPL, but as for myself I always include the weight of the pack itself in there.
Blissful
01-08-2010, 18:04
I would assume the load a pack can carry would include the pack weight. But strive for minimalizing weight as the higher you go to the pack limit, usually the more uncomfortable the pack becomes
Obviously, the load for which a pack is rated would be its maximum working load which takes into account the weight of the pack itself, but the value reported is the load the pack is designed to carry. The person carrying the pack bears the total pack weight (load + pack).
white_russian
01-08-2010, 18:53
I wouldn't want to regularly carry a pack to its comfort limit so weather or not the pack weight is included is not an issue. If you build in a safety factor that makes the pack all the more comfortable and I like my pack to be comfortable since I will wear it more than ten hours a day. So in the end it really doesn't matter.
This is an SF thread. Let's just answer the questions.
The weight guide on the ULA packs (at least the OHM) are spot on. Mine is rated at 28 lbs, & at 26 Lbs (extra 2 ltrs water to a dry camp) I could tell that adding just 2 lbs would be MAX. Just for a margin of error, I now include the weight of the (21 oz) pack when figuring pack weight.
For safety & comfort, I would not exceed the recommended pack weight. At least not for very long: water to a dry camp, not much more than a mile away.
I think that Doctari's answer gets at what might be a better question to ask: how do various packs perform at and beyond the rated max weight? As packs get lighter, it seems less important to me to know or care whether the pack weight itself is included; with my 21 oz pack rated to "total loads of 30 pounds or less", it seems like it falls into a sort of "noise level" issue.
I carried well over 40 pounds in my "30 pounds or less rated" Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus in 2008 going into the Sierras, and it worked fine; here's a picture (http://postholer.com/journal/viewJournal.php?sid=0f5f186771ebab21c540db73d43f20 7c&jtype=photo&entry_id=3376&photo_id=3512). Capacity was sufficient with judicious and ample use of the mesh external pockets. A few days later I noticed some moderately alarming signs of stress on the stitching that holds the pack straps to the upper pack body, but it all held up fine. I did have some shoulder strain early on, but I think that was from a top-heavy pack, with a heavy (very full) bear can on top; I adjusted that (and over time ate down the food load) and the problem went away. Perhaps others would feel differently about this same pack at that weight, but it worked okay for me.
It would be interesting to hear stories of others having significantly gone past their "max recommended pack load", including specific details on pack model, recommended weight, what weight they carried and how it did or didn't work out.
garlic08
01-09-2010, 17:17
...As packs get lighter, it seems less important to me to know or care whether the pack weight itself is included; with my 21 oz pack rated to "total loads of 30 pounds or less", it seems like it falls into a sort of "noise level" issue.
Good point. I realized recently that my 9 oz silnylon frameless pack is rated to carry 40 times its own weight (and has done so, very well, for many long hikes). That explains why I never thought about the issue in this thread, I guess.
It would be interesting to hear stories of others having significantly gone past their "max recommended pack load", including specific details on pack model, recommended weight, what weight they carried and how it did or didn't work out.
Seems to me that's inviting gear failure for people on tight budgets who have little time to wait and don't want to hear they voided their warranty. I'd think those who sell gear and would need to listen to the whining would agree, but most of them have better things to do with their time than to post here.
skinewmexico
01-09-2010, 20:38
Brain at ULA says that the weight is not included in his packs.
So that should give you a couple of pounds as a margin for error. ULA makes great packs, never heard of them not honoring their warranty or doing repairs.
So that should give you a couple of pounds as a margin for error. ULA makes great packs, never heard of them not honoring their warranty or doing repairs.
No, it doesn't, but Brian probably doesn't work on such thin margins given his reputation for quality gear. People should buy gear rated for what they wish to do and then some.
If the people I work with every day would talk like that about wire rope (cable), I'd be working elsewhere or, if I were fool enough to stick around long enough, not at all.
Packs and their suspension systems don't suspend tons of gear over the AT, but the same principles apply to them as apply to wire ropes in industrial environments.
Margins for failure are reduced when efforts are made save on weight and materials as with UL gear.
skinewmexico
01-09-2010, 23:27
I still don't think that 2# is going to make a ULA pack fail. ULAs are known for taking abuse.
Wolf - 23000
01-09-2010, 23:55
Please, I'm aware that a pack is a heavy piece of equipment, and I also never said i was aspiring to UL levels of minimalism. I'm just asking a question about pack ratings so I KNOW where and when to count its weight so I'm not underestimating anything, geez.
I never said you didn't nor did I say anything about UL levels of minimalism. I'm just a little surprise that Brain at ULA does not count his pack as part of his total weight.
Wolf
This is probably a dumb question, but I haven't stumbled past an answer while researching backpacks -- do the weight ratings ("recommended base" "recommended loaded") include the weight of the pack itself, or just what you put in it? Thanks, this will make the calculations much easier!
IMO, if it's on your back, count it as pack weight. This would include the weight of the pack itself. YMMV.
skinewmexico
01-10-2010, 02:08
I never said you didn't nor did I say anything about UL levels of minimalism. I'm just a little surprise that Brain at ULA does not count his pack as part of his total weight.
Wolf
If I understand an earlier poster correctly, Brian doesn't include the weight of the pack in his recommended load.
That came to mind some time ago, however I never come across an "industry standard". My bet is that some do and some don't...
Since ULA has been repeatedly mentioned , I always understood (erroneously it appears...) that the recommended max load was what I would have on my shoulder, pack and content. However I am not really sure that I can tell if I have 33 or 35 lbs on my shoulders.
Reading many comments about packs I know for sure that what some describe as "a dream" I would describe as "8 hours of pure torture", so , who knows ?
To a great extent I think that it is a bit like thinking that Foster is a great beer. If you have never tasted anything else, then maybe it is.
Franco
I just had a look at the Osprey 60 since that is one I have used.
Osprey has this comment above the recommended range :
The green to yellow zones represent the recommended load range for this pack.
That to me implies the load without the pack .
Now that "range" (green to yellow) is 40 to 55 lbs. To me it max out at around 35 lbs. Above that is doable but not "comfortable".
Franco