Base weight

[FromNH]

First, please excuse my ignorance but why do folks care about base weight?
I’m glad my days of carrying almost 100 lbs of combat gear are over and my fully loaded pack is now only 28 lbs. I check my backpack once it’s fully loaded with all gear, food and water.
What is the reason behind focusing purely on base weight?

[Megapixel]

First, please excuse my ignorance but why do folks care about base weight?
I’m glad my days of carrying almost 100 lbs of combat gear are over and my fully loaded pack is now only 28 lbs. I check my backpack once it’s fully loaded with all gear, food and water.
What is the reason behind focusing purely on base weight?

I believe it is focused on because it’s the only constant weight through the trip. Food and water fluctuate, so while the total pack weight is also worth looking at, the base weight is the gauge of comparison & evaluation.

[LoneStranger]

Checking the pack weight once you're fully loaded is actually a good idea. Folks who add up their base weight plus consumables are often surprised to find that their fully loaded pack weighs more

Stuff has a way of sneaking in there. Good to double check before heading out so you aren't surprised on the first climb.

[Traveler]

Thats a great question, base weight has been a conversational/debating point for years. Base weight is commonly considered to be all the stuff in a pack without food and water. Base weight is relatively constant within a given season, for example, base weight in February will be different than base weight in August due to seasonal gear and clothing changes. Food and water weight differs by the day, if not the hour, with consumption and resupply and is not useful as a unit of measure or reference with regard to base weight, especially when looking to compare with others. Knowing base weight is handy when resupply is at hand and how much water and/or food you'll carry and what weight is manageable that will dictate resupply points.

Since base weight is one of those measurements that many if not most long distance hikers know (or learn along the way) the only real variable is what one uses as a definition, from skin out or in the pack itself. Since clothing is not optional I tend to use pack weight with carried items and ignore trekking poles and clothing that I am wearing as opposed to including everything from socks to head nets in the base weight calculation. That doesn't mean I don't have a fair idea of worn clothing weight, just that I don't use it in the base weight calculation.

The end result of the base weight metric for me is to help figure out where I can shed some weight when new gear comes into the market or when my diary indicates some gear or tool I carry is not being used much. Conversely, when adding something to carry if there needs to be an off-loading of anything so the base weight does not change much if at all. The constant goal of the base weight consideration is to try and keep the weight needle moving down.

[perrymk]

It gives us a starting point to talk about gear. If we were to talk about total pack weight, then trip length becomes a factor. There are factors affecting base weight (season, size of person, personal preferences, etc.) but we have eliminated at least one variable, trip length, with a generally accepted term.

Now we can define thru hike and stealth camp.

[JNI64]

I don't know let's ask tipi Walter, what's that your base weight is 90 lbs. Oh ok .. lol...

[hoozurmama]

I know base weight is a controversial topic but I have a question about what should and should not be considered base weight. To me, unless it's something you are wearing on a normal hiking day it's not considered worn. Examples of this would be rain gear, puffy, even a fleece mid layer. I just took a look at a Lighter Pack list that had those things listed as worn. I know it doesn't matter, you're carrying it anyway and totally agree that the total pack weight must also be considered as well as base weight. I just use my number to compare to others to give me ideas on what I'm able to tweak in my kit.

[Slo-go'en]

Base weight matters because your hiking up to 20 or more miles a day. Everyday for months. The heavier the pack the harder it is to sustain that pace over the long haul. That's why people obsess over base weight. It's a lot easier to carry 20 pounds for 2200 miles then it is to carry 40 pounds for 2200 miles.

[Tipi Walter]

Base weight matters because your hiking up to 20 or more miles a day. Everyday for months. The heavier the pack the harder it is to sustain that pace over the long haul. That's why people obsess over base weight. It's a lot easier to carry 20 pounds for 2200 miles then it is to carry 40 pounds for 2200 miles.

This is also a website forum that supports normal backpacking trips not part of an extended "thruhike"---like subforums on Parks, Forests and Wilderness Areas---and a wide variety of Other Trails. The OP, From NH, didn't mention thruhiking when asking a question of Base Weights---he just shared his current pack weight etc which could just as well been for a normal weekend backpacking trip.

But Slo-go'en is right about punching out big daily miles with a heavy pack---it's not gonna happen. EXCEPT there's scores of backpackers here on WB who are "mere" backpackers doing their frequent backpacking trips without regard to punching out a thruhike.

And so then the conversation could revolve around a heavy base weight coupled with an enormous food load to support a long trip with low mile days. Both scenarios are relevant and worthwhile.

[RockDoc]

I think it's funny that so many hikers who are clearly way overweight make a huge point out of going ultralight. The elephant in the room is that they should drop 20 or 30 from their middles. Then carry a 25 lb pack with adequate safety gear, and you would be way ahead...IMHO

(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").

[JNI64]

I think it's funny that so many hikers who are clearly way overweight make a huge point out of going ultralight. The elephant in the room is that they should drop 20 or 30 from their middles. Then carry a 25 lb pack with adequate safety gear, and you would be way ahead...IMHO

(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").

Laughed my ass off on this one, cause it's so true!! !!

[LDog]

Laughed my ass off on this one, cause it's so true!! !!

Oh, I think heavier hikers like lighter packs on their shoulders too.

[Traffic Jam]

Oh, I think heavier hikers like lighter packs on their shoulders too.

Exactly.

And losing 60 ish lbs didn’t result in being able to carry much more weight either...maybe 3-5 more pounds. It just made it easier to climb up hills with a pack.

[Tipi Walter]

(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").

I wanna hear this story. I'm always interested and fascinated and maybe even aroused to hear how lack of gear resulted in an epic trip, as in "packing on the stupid side of light". Such stories bolster my dim view of Ultralight backpacking---so please share.

[Longboysfan]

I think it's funny that so many hikers who are clearly way overweight make a huge point out of going ultralight. The elephant in the room is that they should drop 20 or 30 from their middles. Then carry a 25 lb pack with adequate safety gear, and you would be way ahead...IMHO

(speaking as someone who once found himself in a major storm but packing on the "stupid side of light").

Interesting...
I'm usually carrying 35 or so fully loaded - 5 days on my section hikes.
I've used the hikes to lose weight - 10 to 12 for the last two hikes.
Takes me about 4 months to gain it back.

[Tipi Walter]

Interesting...
I'm usually carrying 35 or so fully loaded - 5 days on my section hikes.
I've used the hikes to lose weight - 10 to 12 for the last two hikes.
Takes me about 4 months to gain it back.

Reminds me of a quote from 1983 AT thruhiker George Steffanos---The The Hail Came---his journal of the hike.

He mentions he's losing weight every day on the trail and says by the time he hits Maine he will weigh 25 lbs.

[FromNH]

Thank you for all your answers. I will stick with max weight as reference and then enjoy the benefit of shedding weight every day until I re supply. It’s all mental to me anyway. I used to walk long distance with a lot more weight while getting shot at. This should be easy, until I hit the first steep incline anyway

[Tipi Walter]

Thank you for all your answers. I will stick with max weight as reference and then enjoy the benefit of shedding weight every day until I re supply. It’s all mental to me anyway. I used to walk long distance with a lot more weight while getting shot at. This should be easy, until I hit the first steep incline anyway

Yes, I'm with you regarding Max Weight. It's really the most important number by far---because it's the amount of crap I have to carry from Day 1---while also shedding weight daily until the end of the trip or whenever. My base weight could be 15 lbs and if I'm carrying 60 lbs of food and fuel, well, that 75 lb pack is what I actually have to carry.

[LDog]

For me, the whole purpose of separating base weight from consumables is to help focus on gear selection, and to determine the appropriate pack for the mission. If I'm hiking into a lake for a week of fishing, that's likely a much bigger, heavier load than what I'd use on a long distance hike on trails like the AT. Both in terms of the gear (Lodge frying pan ...) and the amount of consumables I'd be carrying. That load likely calls for a pack with a robust suspension.

Three season, long distance hiking, on trails where one gets up, eats, packs up, hikes all day, then sets up camp, eats and goes to sleep, and can resupply every 3-4 days, does not call for a lot of stuff. Most end up carrying nothing they don't need. And the stuff they do need does not have to meet MILSPEC, cause one is not exposing their gear to the same stuff as a combat soldier. In that scenario, those lightweight packs, with their minimal, or non-existent suspensions start to look good, But it takes a disciplined approach to gear selection to get down to the max weight those packs can handle comfortably. Cause those packs are miserable to carry if one exceeds their max load specs. At some point they feel like all the weight is on yer shoulders.

Otoh, a 10 day hike, without resupply, may not change much in terms of the gear going in the pack, but one's certainly going to carry approx twice as much food and stove fuel. Those lightweight packs won't cut it. Both in terms of volume and max weight. One's more likely to need a higher volume pack with a more robust suspension for the load to be transferred from shoulders to hip belt. Those packs weigh twice as much as the lightweight ones. So one's adding weight to carry more weight. But if ya gotta carry the weight, ya need a pack designed to carry it.

And hiking into that lake for a week of fishing! I may just want to pack a camp chair, a pan and utensils for cooking fish, a more comfortable sleep system, a hatchet for cutting wood, a bottle of whiskey ... And I'm likely to be carrying more food, cause I'm not resupplying during that week, and I'm not a good fisherman ... I'm looking at packboards.

In any scenario, when I'm planning a hike, I figure out what my consumables needs to be, then focus on base weight to to choose the lightest, lowest volume equipment, in the lightest pack appropriate to conditions.

Worn weight and body weight do not factor into any of that. But as it adds up to what is impacting one's musculoskeletal should not be ignored. I wear the lightest clothing, appropriate to conditions I can afford, and I generally wear trail runners instead of boots, but none of that has anything to do with pack weight. And any xtra weight around my middle when I hit the trail will be burned up in some attempt to make up for the calorie deficit I generally deal with out there, so it's just stored calories ...

In any scenario, by selecting the lightest, lowest volume gear that fits one's requirements, one can potentially employ the lightest, smallest volume pack, and be more comfortable hiking all day up and down mountains.

Burn fewer calories too.

[Tipi Walter]

For me, the whole purpose of separating base weight from consumables is to help determine the appropriate pack for the mission.

But rocking a 25lb pack down the trail sure beats humping a 100lb one. As long as one has everything they need in their pack, and in their head, to deal with stuff that happens.
LDog
AT 2000 miler
https://lighterpack.com/r/38fgjt

I use the same pack for whatever "mission" I'm performing. Whether it's a weekend trip or a 24 day trip---the pack is the same because a near empty 7,000 cubic inch pack rides beautifully and feels great on a short trip---and also feels great on a longer trip.

And rocking a 25 lb pack down the trail might not be such a rocking experience if you're out for 3 weeks and desire to stay out for that amount of time with 50 lbs of food and fuel---and a snow shovel and microspikes and a full winter kit.

Remember, this Base Weight discussion is not only limited to thruhiking the Appalachian Trail---and not all backpackers on Whiteblaze are long trail thruhikers---as this website also includes Other Trails and different wilderness areas and expedition trips and backpacking in general. As in The General Forum. And some AT backpackers are using the AT as part of a long backpacking trip with significant pack weight.

I think the Base Weight number is a not-so-clever attempt to feel good about backpacking and to set up a number which in reality is never really achieved. Let's say your Base Weight is 20 lbs with no water or food. Well, you will rarely if ever backpack with no water or food---so the BW number is a sort of spreadsheet "feel good" thing that will always be lower than your real-world on-trail backpacking number.

If a person is really obsessed, he/she/it/they/him/her could weigh the pack on Day 1 with everything and on Day 10 (or whatever) before resupply---and then average out the weight number. Let's say you start out a winter trip with a 50 lb pack on Day 1 and on Day 10 end up with a 28 lb pack---then do some math to reach a daily average weight over those 10 days.