Topic
Packweight definitions
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › General Forums › Philosophy & Technique › Packweight definitions
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Jan 8, 2013 at 6:54 am #1297778
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 :-)
Jan 8, 2013 at 12:38 pm #1941877I 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 lessSo ballbark % weights would be
10% = L
5% = UL
3% = 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 lbs
SUL = 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
Jan 8, 2013 at 12:49 pm #1941883If 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.
Jan 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm #1941884Let me put on my asbestos jacket and pants…
Jan 8, 2013 at 3:18 pm #1941948Ofcourse 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.
Jan 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm #1942221 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.