Apr 30, 2012 at 11:47 pm #1289384
@b-g-2-2Locale: Silicon Valley
I just saw this new terminology for an organized group trip for later this summer:
"Hikers should plan for a maximum base weight of the lesser of 15 pounds or 8% of your body weight."
I don't know whether I should alter my gear base weight or alter my body weight. If I gained a hundred pounds of body weight, I could take more heavy luxuries.
–B.G.–May 1, 2012 at 12:23 am #1872997
Hart –BPL Member
@backpackerchickLocale: Planet Earth
That means you have to weigh 187.5 lbs (85kg) to get the full 15 lb (6.8 kg) allowance. Perhaps, one should be allowed a bit extra pack weight if one isn't hauling excess body weight. Smaller people need less food, controlling for other factors, so perhaps they should be allowed further additional pack weight. No?May 1, 2012 at 1:45 am #1873001
James MarcoBPL Member
@jamesdmarcoLocale: Finger Lakes
That is one way. Do not forget that that is BASE weight.
Food, fuel, water (other consumables: bug dope, AM drops, etc) usually represent 1/2 to 2/3 of my PACK weight. By those figures, I could carry up towards 45# of PACK weight. Really not a bad number for a two week trip.
Did you all miss the distinction? BASE vs PACK weights, that is.
Tent/tarp (1#), Sleeping bag(1#13), pack(9oz), cooking gear(31oz, pad(10oz), clothing (long johns(14-18oz), socks(8oz), jacket(12oz), raingear6(oz) and dittybag(1#) come up to about 9-11 pounds.May 1, 2012 at 3:25 am #1873004
"If I gained a hundred pounds of body weight, I could take more heavy luxuries."
Given that it's the lesser of the two numbers, gaining a hundred pounds would only help if you weigh 87.5 pounds or less.May 1, 2012 at 5:31 am #1873018
Ken T.BPL Member
That's only a pound and a half difference fro me.May 1, 2012 at 8:13 am #1873065
David ThomasBPL Member
@davidinkenaiLocale: North Woods. Far North.
>"Smaller people need less food. . . "
Hartley: True, that.
Smaller people need less food and need less surface area covered with clothing, but (1) clothing area only scales with area, not volume like weight does (giving a weight/weight advantage to larger people) and (2) big people run warm (really big people are in shorts all winter) so they further save on daytime clothing and nighttime sleep systems.
If someone needs a universal standard, perhaps that weight which reduces you daily mileage by 25% for UL and 10% for SUL. Consider that traditional BP weights reduce many people's daily mileage by 70% – compared to a no-weight dayhike of 20 miles, they might do 6 mile days with 50 pounds on their back.
Who needs a universal definition – HYOH. But the concept of "How far do I want to hike in a day? Therefore, I'll reduce my base+food+fuel to XX." is a useful one for some, especially for through hikers.May 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm #1875007
Eric BlumensaadtBPL Member
@danepackerLocale: Mojave Desert
One of the best explainations of BASE WEIGHT I ever heard was a backpacker trying to explain it to a newbie girl. He said, "Imagine you'e going on an overnight backpack of 10 miles in and 10 miles out."
"Then Imagine a 7 day trip of 8 to 10 miles per day. What gear would you take on the 7 day trip you would not take on the overnighter?"
The newbie girl agreed she would take pretty much the same gear and the only difference would be food and fuel.
The experienced backpacker then told her, "So all that gear, minus water, fuel and food, is your base weight. Think of it as 'Gear Weight' ". With the term "Gear Weight" she suddenly got it and the next day they began a discussion of "skin-out" weight. Discussions like that on the trail is so much more meaningful than at home. Makes you really think about "necessities".May 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm #1876729
Dean F.BPL Member
@acrosomeLocale: Back in the Front Range
I have already addressed this issue definitvely:
You have to get through a long discussion, though. The fun starts on the second page. :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.