Packweight definitions
 Display Avatars Sort By: Date (Chronological) Date (Reverse Chronological)
 Peter S (prse) - MLife Locale: Denmark Packweight definitions on 01/08/2013 07:54:47 MST Just found this (older) article from Hendriks site (hikinginfinland.com), and i think it's a good perspective on the matterhttp://hikinginfinland.com/2010/03/ul-weight-watchers.html- just wanted to sharebeing a size large i like this...haha :-)
 Mike Oxford (moxford) - MLife Locale: Silicon Valley, CA Percentage on 01/08/2013 13:38:35 MST I like the idea of %-based skin-out weights, if anyone really cares, minus water/fuel.From JGG (via Hendrik's post)Lightweight = 12-20 poundsUltralight = 6-11 pounds Superultralight = 5 pounds or lessSo ballbark % weights would be 10% = L5% = UL3% = SULI am 6'6" 230, so 5% (UL) for me is 11.5lbs, not including water/fuel.Someone who is 150 lbs, UL would be 7.5 lbs.Does a larger hiker need 4 more lbs? I'll posit 'yes' just because my shoes are heavier, my clothes are heavier, my pad is arguably longer/wider, my pack is bigger to fit my torso, my bag is longer/wider, my tarp is longer/wider, my tent is longer/wider, etc. You get the idea - it all adds up and 48 oz can disappear pretty darn quickly when almost every single facet of your gear is affected.For me... L = 23.0 lbs UL = 11.5 lbsSUL = 6.9 lbsTo me, the goal of lightweight is "less stuff so you can do more." My body/frame is built and can handler a higher %-baseweight without really noticing it, which makes up for the fact that I need bigger stuff.Why did I point out "minus fuel?" Because not everyone can use wood-stoves in their area. Not everyone can agree on canister vs WG vs esbit vs alcohol. This normalizes the weights more globally. This gives you the chance to tune your stove without worrying about one facet, and normalizes stoves a little across weather conditions and fuel availability. Now, if people start lugging bags of mesquite-flavored charcoal around ... As Henrik points out, it's just a number. :)-mox
 Hiking Malto (gg-man) - F Base weight on 01/08/2013 13:49:25 MST If it makes you feel better to have a UL label vs. a L label then use whatever term you want. Your back wont know the difference.
 Nick Gatel (ngatel) - MLife Locale: Southern California Re: Base weight on 01/08/2013 13:52:01 MST Let me put on my asbestos jacket and pants...
 Peter S (prse) - MLife Locale: Denmark fun on 01/08/2013 16:18:58 MST Ofcourse nobody really cares...it's a hobby...but it's good fun to geek a around! And i think that Hendriks perspective actually "softens" the old packweight definitions, which is quite rigid imo.
 Dean F. (acrosome) - MLife Locale: Back in the Front Range Satire on 01/09/2013 13:19:44 MST Tongue-in-cheek:http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=23394&startat=20