Forum Index » Philosophy & Technique » Packweight definitions


Display Avatars Sort By:
Peter S
(prse) - MLife

Locale: Denmark
Packweight definitions on 01/08/2013 07:54:47 MST Print View

Just found this (older) article from Hendriks site (hikinginfinland.com), and i think it's a good perspective on the matter

http://hikinginfinland.com/2010/03/ul-weight-watchers.html

- just wanted to share

being a size large i like this...haha :-)

Mike Oxford
(moxford) - MLife

Locale: Silicon Valley, CA
Percentage on 01/08/2013 13:38:35 MST Print View

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 pounds
Ultralight = 6-11 pounds
Superultralight = 5 pounds or less

So ballbark % weights would be
10% = L
5% = UL
3% = SUL

I 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 lbs
SUL = 6.9 lbs

To 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 Print View

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 Print View

Let me put on my asbestos jacket and pants...

Peter S
(prse) - MLife

Locale: Denmark
fun on 01/08/2013 16:18:58 MST Print View

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 Print View

Tongue-in-cheek:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=23394&startat=20