What is your willingness to pay for lighter gear?

"This example would require spending $225 to reduce your pack weight by 10 ounces which can be described by a simple ratio of 225:10. So in essence you would need to spend $22.50 per ounce of weight reduction."

Actually, not quite correct. The real cost per ounce of weight reduction is computed using this formula:

($225-75) / 10 oz. / no. of times to be used

So for one trip, the result may look silly, but if you plan to hike the Sierras, etc. extensively over the next several decades… then the cost is easily justified!

Sign — Ben the Gear Addiction Enabler.

Ben – Good point regarding the longevity of the product. Though, it's difficult to measure and the cost occurs up front at the decision point. Clearly product longevity plays a major role in purchase decisions. For example, I would potentially pay $25 per ounce for something that would last as long as a bear canister, but would not for a product whose expected lifespan is less than, say, one year.

Regarding subtracting 75 dollars – my perspective is that unless you sell the old canister for 75 dollars you've already spent this amount and should not subtract it. If you had neither product than for sure you would want to use the difference in product cost.

In the case of bear canisters one could do further computations and factor in how many canister rentals it would take to make up the initial purchase price. But rental availability is uncommon with ultralight gear.

I was faced with a similar decision just this past week. Replace my Helios vest (11oz) with a Skaha vest (6.5oz) for around $275. $61/ounce saved, I just can't justify it right now. Longevity is the same for both pieces of gear, so that is not a factor. I also wasn't sure the Skaha would be warmer or as warm (Skaha is about 2" thick, while my Helios is about 4" thick)

Remember, fucntion of the new product is a major factor in that type of calculation. I could figure out how much $/ounce I spent to replace a tarptent with a MLD Serenity Shelter/Tarp setup, but the latter is so much more flexible.

Steve

>> ($225-75) / 10 oz. / no. of times to be used

Another consideration. You say what the heck, I'll use my credit card and make minimum payments and end up paying quite a bit more than $225 for the weight reduction, but I will get it right away so I can start justifying my purchase.

Or you make an effort to use less gas and not eat out as much. As a result, your savings grows. Say $9 a week. In six months you have enough to buy it.

In the latter case, you not only consider your cost related to weight reduction and times used, but the hit to your savings. Each six months that you wait to buy gear, you have another $225. In the former, your load is lightened, but your financial burden gets heavier.

My willingness to pay for lighter gear does not go beyond having to pay interest. IMHO, lighter gear never offsets heavier debt.

These have all been excellent points that influence purchasing decisions. However, I most interested in what folks are willing to spend to purely save an ounce. So for now set aside gear longevity, quality, financial means, etc and think back on your more recent purchases where you replaced a piece of gear that was otherwise functional but had a lighter alternative available. Let's make the assumption that you considered the above factors when you made or did not make the purchase.

For example, Steve was unwilling to justify the $61/ounce saved ratio for a Shaka vest to lighten his pack load. While the two vests were not precisely comparable, I get the impression his consideration behind the gear exchange was driven on weight reduction, and that either vest would have met his requirements. Providing both purchases you made and those which you felt you couldn’t justify will help identify a ratio that many have trouble crossing.

I’ll contribute a few additional examples:
Purchase made: A year or so ago I replaced a Big Agnes Sarvis SL2 eVENT tent that weighed 67 ounces with a SMD Lunar Duo that weighs 43 ounces and cost $275. Both tents provide adequate space, etc but the Lunar Duo is clearly lighter. So, I spent $275 to save 24 ounces, or $11.5 / ounce.

Purchase not made: I currently use a Sea to Summit mosquito headnet that weighs 1.2 ounces. I’ve considered replacing it with a BPL ultralight mosquito headnet that costs $36 and weighs 0.33 ounces. This represents a $41:1 ounce saved ratio – one that I cannot justify.

I’d be more than willing to average the responses of those that provide this data and report them in this forum thread. I’m certain that those in the cottage industry would be very interested in the results.

FYI, I have no financial conflicts of interest. I am a 100% consumer and have no financial/marketing relationships with any company.

The way i do it is to work out how many hours/days/weeks i would have to work to pay for it.
For instance, am i prepared to give up 3 days of my time for item A?……….

I've totally revamped my gear during the past year to SUL, and have spent a lot of money doing it. My justification is that now that I'm retired I have unlimited time to hike and I'll truly get the use out of it. I've spent at least 10 times as many days hiking as I did in my previous working years, and being able to do it so lightweight has been great.

The ratio of $/oz is meaningless in a vacuum

i.e., John has time to use his gear more. Mike sees how many hours or days of work he pays. I won't go in debt for gear regardless of the weight reduction.

Check out this discussion of diminishing returns and see the included charts.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=6853

I would be in a lot of trouble if I didn't do the MYOG thing.
My last two significant purchases were a Brasslite $25 Ti cup 550mL. It saves me 2.5 oz, or $10/ oz. Sadly, its not really usable with my supercat alcohol stove, so the stove I would bring would add those 2.5 oz back and then some, plus I would have a much smaller pot. My last other significant purchase was chirstmas over a year ago when I got a $150 thermawrap parka (14 oz) to replace my 26oz Campmor Down jacket, $12.5 per ounce. Great deal, but I wasn't going to shell out the extra $ for a BPL Cacoon which may not even be better or as good as the MB.
From a MYOG standpoint, I won't buy $150 of Cuben to save 5 or 6 ounces over my big silnylon tarp, or $90 of spinntex for 4 ounces. I am willing to spend an extra $6 per yard on Momentum over 1.1 DWR, but not willing to spend $13 per yard to replace something of 1.1 DWR with momentum.

In trying to decide on a new solo tarp I could spend $110.00 on a new Oware cat tarp 1.5 that weighs in at 8.5 oz or spend $235.00 for a MLD spectralite Grace Solo that weighs in at 5.8 oz. They are basically the same size, very similar in design and each would be considered a good selection for a UL kit. When it comes to performance they each have strengths and weakness's but either will get the job done. Is the weight saved worth more then double the cost, in my opinion no? So why pay more for the MLD, because I can and it makes me happy.

Same situation here. I was introduced to this site in late 2006 and since then have made the transition to UL spending much money doing so. The cost has been worth it thus far in as much as I have more time to backpack now and, having a much lighter pack, am enjoying it more than ever. I can justify paying the money easily if I like the deal even though it may not even make sense to me.

On a slightly different note I am ready to make a purchase of a piece of gear that has heavy price tag and an excellent reputation for quality to go along with it. I am hesitant, however, to make the purchase because I have a resentment towards the company and it’s pervasive control of the market price. Most manufacturers, I guess, exercise as much control as possible to support it's suggested retail price but this company has managed to successfully exert almost total control. It cannot be found on sale anyplace even though I know of some retailers that have overstock that they would like to unload now but are afraid of losing their contract.

On the one hand a manufacturer has to have a good product to manage this but I am still having a hard time over it’s price control preventing a free market price allowing the retailer cut it’s profit to unload stock but passing savings on to the consumer.

If there were another product on the market to satisfy my desired specs I would gladly to go there over this perceived malevolence by the manufacturer. This is more than a money issue. My check book will hardly feel the price difference. It is a public relations issue and has me hung up at the moment.

I look at my light weight gear and the extra money it costs, as equal to my husbands photography gear. Each lens, each tripod each extra piece of equipment serves another purpose for his enjoyment.
The same as my gear, and all of it seems to cost about the same…lol

However I have made quite a few buys that did not turn out to be great for me, or simply did not work the way I intended them too. I believe this is true with most hobbies, all trial and error.

I would love to go even lighter but to pay out for cuben gear, for only a savings of 3 to 4 oz. I will simply have to wait till my other gear wears out, or I tire of it.
Or to pay out $200 for a lighter bear canister I may only use once to save 4 oz …that's a big NO way, I just can't bring myself to do it.

I counted up my gear and was in shock of just how much I had collected over the last 4 years. Much of this was due to taking family and friends with me who had no gear at all. What a excuse to buy and try new gear…lol

For me:
YES, I am willing to pay, because I would not be able to hike or backpack at all if it was not for going lighter!

Great comments everyone…

John, Very interesting… I’d be curious as to what the cost per ounce saved between what you are currently using and the new product you are considering is. Feel free to continue to keep the product and company names anonymous as you did in your original post.

George, I really appreciate your input and found the discussion and graphs that you, Brett, and others produced on pack weight to be fascinating. However, I must disagree with your implication that using cost:weight saved ratios is “meaningless in a vacuum”. In fact, if it were possible to control for all other factors that influenced purchases (i.e. put the process in a vacuum), in my opinion the ratio would have even more meaning. It essentially is asking how much you are willing to pay to further reduce your pack weight (after controlling for all the other factors you consider when making a gear purchase).

Disclaimer: Mud boots may be required for the remaining section of this post as readers may experience excessive amounts of BULL.

I’ll be the first to admit this is certainly simplified and to be interpreted in this context. It would certainly be great to control for other factors that influence purchasing gear when considering the “cost incurred : weight reduced”. However, the list of variables would be substantially diverse. For example, in this short post alone we have the following variables: time to use gear, financial means, time spent working to generate the financial means, durability, functionality, “we just really like the gear”, “new=sexy=good!” etc. Oh and by the way, I list and interpreted these variables in good fun and mean to offend no one. We all have our reasons for buying gear…

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. I am approaching this much like a very simplified multiple variable logistic regression (MVLR) model. Where we are modeling the probability of the binary outcome “gear was purchased” using a series of explanatory variables. The explanatory variable of my interest is the ratio of “cost incurred : weight reduced”. If you could sufficiently characterize the majority of other influential factors on gear purchasing, and list them as specific categorical or continuous variables, one could accurately determine the influence of such factors on the probability that we would make the purchase. Since there is substantial diversity in the factors we each use to make purchasing decisions, we can retrospectively work through the problem. That is, we already know if we purchased gear or decided against it, and we also know the “cost incurred : weight reduced” ratio of that gear. Clearly other factors were considered in this decision so we hold them constant (or control for them). In MVLR terms, they would be accounted for in the error term.

Again, this ratio approach is very simplified with lots of holes for discussion, but I am already finding it interesting that those who have provided such ratios have been consistent (however, our sample size is quite small). For example, we are thus far willing to purchase gear in the ~ < $15 : ounce reduced ratio but when it reaches $20 : ounce reduced or more we appear to become hesitant. I sure you can find exceptions, but all data have points which deviate more than 2 standard deviations from the mean, no?

Brian no offense but are you an engineer or a lawyer perhaps?

Listed:
Luna Duo 2 person tent @43 oz equals $6.40 per ounce

verses my Eureka 2 person tent @ 80 oz equals $1.74 per ounce
or Etowah Outfitters Ultralight Meadows Tarp Shelter 2 person @21 oz equals $6.43 per ounce.

Conclusion: The Luna Duo was worth every penny :)
even more so since I purchased both the Meadows Tarp and Luna Duo here on BPL in gear swap.

TiGoat AGP (pair) = $20.83/oz.
I even surpassed $20 without hesitation. Am I a freak of nature?

Gail, I’m an assistant professor in a school of pharmacy. My focus is in cardiovascular outcomes research. Though, I would have enjoyed being an engineer or a lawyer! :)

I’m uncertain how you are calculating your ratios. Are you dividing the amount you paid by the weight (in ounces) differences between the two tents? For example if you paid, say, $200 for the Lunar Duo (and did not sell the Eureka) and take the difference in weight between your Eureka tent (which you are replacing) and your new Lunar Duo (37 ounce difference). Dividing 200/37 = $5.4:ounce reduced. Is this how you ended up with your ratios?

Chris, The $15:ounce reduced ratio was just the initial trend. It’s certainly not a limit. Thanks for raising the average… ;) -just kidding!

Another consideration to add is the concept of diminishing return. Spending $500 to reduce 10lbs — say from 45lbs to 35lbs may well be worth it. On the other hand, the same cost and saving going from 25 to 15 may not be such a big deal anymore simply because 25 is already light enough for many people.

There are, of course, gear freaks who'll spend anything to shave from 5lbs to 4lbs — but face it, the benefits there are essentially psychic. "Normal" people will either yawn or laugh or both — and walk away. :)

It's all a game and if you can afford it, why not play?
I refuse to pay ridiculous gym fees so i can run on a treadmill or use a rowing machine, when i can run or cycle outdoors for free. Yet i don't mind spending a small fortune on a lightweight bit of kit i probably don't really need! The contradictions in life are hilarious!

When I look through the purchases I have made over the last 8 years, it looks like I have been willing to spend up to a $10/ounce "surcharge" (typically around $6/oz) for weight savings on items that I use on most trips and will have a multi-year lifetime. I am also willing to pay an additional surcharge for improved performance, simplicity, or durability which doesn't involve additional weight.

How did I figure "surcharge"?

(1) Look at how much I spent to replace an item when the sole motivation was saving weight. For example, I purchased an Evernew .9L pot ($35@5oz) because I wanted a lighter (and smaller) pot when I went on solo trips. I already had an MSR 2l pot which weighted 12oz. So I spend $35 to save 7oz, or $5/oz. Often times the total cost was defrayed by selling the heavier item on ebay. For example, I purchased a Tarptent Squall + tyvek $190@28oz to replace a 4lb MSR Zoid2 (which I then ebayed for $90). Cost of change was $90 for 36oz saved, or $2.5/oz.

(2) When there were items of nearly identical design, but were I selected a more expensive item primarily because it weighted less. An example of this would be to purchase the Six Moon Designs RefugeeX rather than the Refugee. The closest I have come to this (though there were reasons in addition to weight) was purchasing a MLD SuperFly ($240@12oz) rather than MSR Twin Peaks ($150@26oz)… which works out to be around $6/oz.

–Mark

Now that I have my base weight down to 7 – 8 lbs, I've factored in the "usage" parameter more than anything. How often can I actually get out and use the stuff, and is it then worth the cost.

When I sit in front of Excel, ANYTHING is worth the cost, but when I stand back and say… OK – most of the time I go hiking with my wife, which means I bring a tent. So do I really need another tarp when I don't use the one I have very much?

(( Then the tuition bill comes – and I get forced to factor that in as well ))

"Brian no offense but are you an engineer or a lawyer perhaps?"

Hey…What kind of remark is that?!? I'm an engineer!

You seemed so nice in your previous posts, Gail.

Tom ;)

It was just a joke Tom…

I am sorry Brian if it did offend you.
I was just playing around…my answer was very simple and yours was so precise with a lot of detail…that was all. :)

The ratios…I simply wanted to see how much I paid per ounce for the item…so the cost of the tent divided by the total ounces.
I did not compare or subtract from each other item.

Have fun everyone, I am got of here for my trip to the mainland…see you in a month!

Gail, No offense taken. I've been called much worse than an engineer or lawyer… well maybe not much worse than a lawyer… (kidding) Thanks for your input!

To clarify a little bit…your comments just reminded me of the inventors and engineers we worked with then we had a light manufacturing business on the mainland.
As well as the precise and detailed information from the lawyers who handled the copyrights, patents etc…

I am truly sorry I was just joking around and did not intend to really offend anyone.

Great Brian I am happy to hear that.