I say let’s decide on a general consensus of Ultralight definitions and terms.

[Cesar Valdez]

As of now there are 25 votes, with 13 votes favoring imperial (9 for current Wiki set, 4 for Abela's) and 12 favoring metric (8 for normal metric, 4 for my idea). This only after a few days, so I'd say that's not bad. I think if we get over 100 votes that might be something close to significant, perhaps. Poll is open for a month.

Some response to some comments:

Franco, thanks for the information. That bit of trivia about 1912 was interesting. Note however that I didn't say *solid* gold, so I think that my sentence is still accurate. There is, after all, at least some gold on the gold metals, making them at least partially made of literal gold.

To several that have pointed out different conditions and comfort and such, please keep in mind I am not suggesting (nor have I ever suggested) that UL backpacking is applicable to all types of outdoor recreation or even backpacking in general. I think this is a fairly simple and straightforward issue: UL as we are currently discussing (be it 5kg or 10lbs) in general is not applicable to everything. This is Backpacking Light, not Mountaineering Light or Outdoor Lake Ice Hockey Light other such more involved activities. As someone pointed out on reddit, having a 15lb base weight for deep winter camping one could call XUL.

Obviously if you need to account for safety, UL guidelines (and probably many other guidelines) go out the window. If you're going to be sleeping up on top of the Alps in the middle of winter, why, why, why would you entertain the idea of having a SUL BPW? UL on such a trip I personally think would have a pretty good chance of being foolish and/or dangerous.

Perhaps a notion or clarification ought to be added to say, the wikipedia article on ultralight about proper conditions (if there isn't one already there that I may have missed). When I think about the total sum of trip reports I see on this forum, and all the videos on youtube of UL backpackers I follow, there is a clear pattern. The majority (if not grand majority) of these trips are walks in nature, and mostly on marked trails. Some are in the desert (hi Nick!), some are in the woods (most of us maybe?), and most are during spring, summer, and fall–places and conditions where the weights in question are applicable. I thought that was understood, and hope it is now. "Backpacking" is a broad term, so it's worth pointing these issues out. And when it comes down to it, if you want to take 10kg base pack weight with you, take it. If you want to take 1kg, take it. Do what you think will make you the happiest and will also keep you safe and comfortable.

It's just that we, as a community of thousands of people, all have a collective experience that demonstrates that under the right conditions and locations, you can be just as happy, safe, and comfy with 5kg or even 2.5kg than what most traditional backpackers take (which is often double or even triple the standards of UL). There are even triple crown hikers that have pulled it all off UL. Being able to give a general set of guidelines that roughly communicate all this is valuable, not only for us, but perhaps even more importantly to others new to all this and need something more concrete first before moving into abstract "there are no UL weights, it's all in your mind" territory.

[Aaron Sorensen]

You know what I would like to see even more than a consensus about what weight is UL and SUL should be, is to stop using UL in gear that would not make an UL kit.

3 1/2 pound tent, 2 1/2 pound bag, 3 pound pack, and a 1 pound pad = Ultra Light????

When is anyone ever going to get their gear below 10 pounds when 4 of them already weigh 10 pounds?

Market hype to the letters UL is so outlandish and is every where it shouldn't be.

[Paul Magnanti]

Oy vey…Trying to get consensus among outdoors people AND online??? This commercial comes to mind :)

Herding Cats

[Cesar Valdez]

I know, I know. It's just an informal way of making a rough sketch of what we as a community can agree on. If there is a better way to do this, I'm open to suggestions.

And side note, what are some other UL forums? I only ever visit BPL and r/ultralight, but surely there are other places? Though I am guessing these two are the biggest ones in terms of members.

[Larry Swearingen]

In the first place having Arbritrary Weight Classifications is ridiculous for Light/UltraLight/SuperUltraLight.
Just compare equipment weights for a small person, let's say 5'2"
and a big guy at around 6'4"+. Almost every piece of equipment, except stove etc., is going to weigh a lot more for the big guy
than the small person (male or female).
I wear an XL top in anything, L in pants and a size 13 shoe.
Just compare the weights of anything in that classification to the
manufacturers listed weights.
The Big Guy needs Big shoes, Big clothes, maybe bigger shelter, bigger
pack etc. all the way down the line. The Big Guy will need to consume more food and water and fuel on a hike too.

Larry
"Hoosier Daddy"

[Billy Ray]

Aaron:
"3 1/2 pound tent, 2 1/2 pound bag, 3 pound pack, and a 1 pound pad = Ultra Light????
…
Market hype to the letters UL is so outlandish and is every where it shouldn't be."

Actually, it depends. If you are doing a winter trip in the high mountains then the items/weights that you mention could indeed be UL… for the given conditions.

This illustrates why a "a consensus about what weight is UL and SUL should be" would be very difficult… (along with size of the hiker, etc.)

Billy

[Edward Jursek]

I have rejected the UL, SUL and XUL classifications entirely and I am now just seeking to get "lighter" in ways that are both comfortable and safe. I have a "light" kit built around trips of about 7 days long in the Pacific Northwest from July – October and a "lighter" kit built around trips of 2 to 3 days in length in the Pacific Northwest from July – October. My "light" kit currently has a base weight of about 9 1/2 pounds and is slimming down a bit more each year. It balances comfort and safety and works in all weather down to 20 degrees. My overall long term goal, based on my own safety, comfort and skill level is to get this kit to about 9 pounds. My "lighter" kit is just barely under 7 pounds now and is safe and comfortable in all weather to 30 degrees. My overall goal is to get my "lighter" kit down to about 6 pounds, balancing safety, comfort and my skill level. Each year as I learn and my skill grows I am feeling psychologically and philosophically "lighter" in the back county; more confident, comfortable and connected with nature. You can't put a label on that.

[Stuart R]

Sorry, but I disagree. UL backpacking is not hiking in "places and conditions where the weights in question are applicable."
To me, UL is more of a philosophy which is applicable to all places and conditions but the weight carried varies to suit.

[spelt with a t]

What is the actual benefit to having concrete weight categories?

[Paul Magnanti]

>>What is the actual benefit to having concrete weight categories?

Lots of discussion to occupy the time? :)

[Larry De La Briandais]

"To me, any conscious decision to save weight is a step in the right direction… In my mind these are big improvements in a hobby. Some new gear has obviously contributed, but honestly mindset, comfort zone, and better planning have contributed even more than a change in gear to the weight loss.

I'm a long ways from being a UL backpacker."

Yup, that is me too. And in thinking about what I take I am realizing that I don't need most of what I use to take. Most of that gear was based on a camping trip that required you to pack everything in. I still take everything on that trip, but it is a camping trip, not a hiking trip. And that required a mindset shift. And that is what made the biggest difference for me.

[Larry De La Briandais]

Personally, I prefer base 2. Simple and easy. ;)

[James Marco]

Yeah, I agree with Stuart. Taking the lightest gear you have available does not always give you the safest pack load if conditions are not taken into account. It just doesn't make any sense. SUL, XSUL weights are nice. But, does this count what you are wearing? Or, what you keep in your pockets? No, it really is an arbitrary number.

[Bas Hommes]

Why is base pack weight (BPW) still in the definitions? OK, I can see the use of leaving out consumables when thinking about UL and its derivatives. But isn't there wide consensus that clothes worn count 100% or more? To me BPW is not a useful concept: in shoulder season about 25% of the weight is not in my pack. If I count shoes 5 times that number is about 45%. Also when reading this forum I get the impression most people don't really use BPW in their thinking.

I think it is time BPW is removed from the definitions.

What should be included however is excess body weight (EBW). It is in my spreadsheet (4 kilos), but to be honest I always set it to zero when I start planning next trip. Maybe I will put it into the consumable category in future so it seems to hurt less.

[M B]

While FSO weight is a measure as well, BPW is indicative of pack comfort.

In the end, what REALLY matters is total pack weight.

I have a distinct preference for a pack less than 23, most preferably < 20 lbs.

The more food or water I know I will need to carry, the lower I will keep my BPW for a given trip. Often to try to stay in the comfort range of a lighter pack, rather than a heavier one.

[Billy Ray]

"What is the actual benefit to having concrete weight categories?"

Yea… should get rid of the concrete… much too heavy…

billy

[Cesar Valdez]

Stuart – I can respect that you disagree with me, but you're not giving me much to work with. I already elaborated on the fact that there is a clear pattern of general backpacking conditions. Do you think my assessment was accurate or not? Why or why not?

You say that UL is "applicable to all places and conditions" and I find this problematic. When something is so broad it no longer carries any meaning. If I say that pizza applicable to all bread and sauces, the word "pizza" is going to become a confusing term. Crackers with jam one could call "pizza," much like one could take your definition and say that their 10kg base weight is "UL" because of their own personal wants/needs. Hey, if you are going to bring musical instruments and chairs into the woods to jam out, then I guess 10kg could be "UL," especially if you're in a Ska band with a big horn section. And I don't mean to sound like I am mocking you or being pedantic here, I am just pointing out that the inherent shortcomings of overly-broad definitions. If someone with a 10, 20, or even 100kg base weight can apply the term to what we understand as the activity of backpacking, we might as well just do away with the term and call it all backpacking. Which is fine. But this presents other problems too.

spelt! – "What is the actual benefit to having concrete weight categories?"

To be able to give an approximate yet fairly accurate answer to the question, "what is UL backpacking?", for one. Next, for the international community of UL backpackers to have a base set of accepted categories to make discussions more pragmatic and easier. One could ask, "Going to X hiking trail in X season, would SUL work?" or "Went UL on X hiking trail, it went well but think I could have gone SUL." etc. I know that this person means 10lbs/12lbs/5kg or whatever when talking UL.

As I said in my blog, I can't state enough how much I also value re-defining, challenging, and re-inventing definitions and terms. But I also see the value in having a set standard to work with first so everyone knows what is being discussed.

Does all this make sense? Do you think the above constitutes a benefit?

Bas – I agree with you to an extent, which is why I included clothing worn in my suggested set of definitions. Consumables can vary even more than BPW or CW if you ask me, so I didn't even attempt to define that or FSO. I'm open to suggestions.

[David Ure]

You aren't re-defining anything as there really aren't any specific definitions that currently exist. For some UL means a BW of 12 pounds. Others 8 pounds. You are trying to arbitrarily apply some meaningless number with ignorance toward geographic location, season, size of the individual, length of trip, personal metabolic rate, fitness, etc, which are all situation and individual specific.

Not to mention, this type of process is done every few years by someone who is trying to feel special that their BW is so low.

Happy New Year.

[spelt with a t]

Hi Cesar,
I'm not against the idea in theory, but with the number of variables (season, geography, body size, etc) I'm not convinced that 3-4 categories will really be useful in conversation. You'd have to add all the qualifying information for context and then you're sort of back where you started, except that a bunch of people and a bunch of trip types will know "for sure" that they don't qualify as UL. (A few years ago back when I was reading here but not posting, I feel like some of those "who and what qualifies" discussions got pretty acrimonious. I'd rather not go back to that, honestly.)

My own preference (based on my own biases, of course!) would be a more detailed exploration of different decision processes to minimal/UL outdoor activities. Is someone's approach to be the absolute lightest no matter the fiddle factor? Or perhaps a minimal amount of gear is the goal, either used per trip or owned overall in the closet. Is there a difference in light kits based around big miles vs kits that are light so the owner can carry other things (cameras, research equipment, someone else's gear)?

Ultimately I'm more interested in why people want to go lighter, and how they make the decisions to do that, than I am in categorizing the results. Maybe this is the pomo wishywashyness you were worried about. ;) But it also reflects my personal behavior. I keep a spreadsheet, and I know roughly what my pack weighs when I go out, but I don't meticulously add up grams or think about what counts as an "UL trip."

Edit to add: I'm also not interested in categorizing process types, except loosely so that people with similar approaches could benefit from each other.

[Ian]

Cesar,

I think the best thing for you is to create a reference within your blog of what those terms mean to you and reference them as appropriate as time goes on. Even if you were to get every BPL member to agree as to what these terms mean, you still wouldn't be at a point where you've created an industry standard outside of BPL.

George Carlin once said, "I leave symbols to the symbol minded." I look at these weight class badges much the same way. I'm very glad that I set 10 lbs as a goal for my three season base weight instead of 15 lbs. It forced me to make tough decisions, to refine my skill, and to do a lot of research. I now have a backpack that I barely notice as I walk through the woods and my feet feel like gold at the end of the day. That brought me to a point where I can lighten it up even more for the trips where I'm not in the Cascades or add weight to it for when I want to take my kids fishing or treat them to a fry bake. For me, the whole point was to reduce pain and increase enjoyment when backpacking, not to earn a weight class badge.

Hopefully this did not come across as rude to your OP. This is just my perspective, ymmv, hyoh, byob, etc.

[Cesar Valdez]

Dave – "You aren't re-defining anything as there really aren't any specific definitions that currently exist."

With all due respect, you are mistaken here on two counts. Yes, I have re-defined things. You are welcome to read my blog post to see the specifics of my definitions. Next, yes there are specific definitions that currently exist. I cite two different definitions in my article: one from wikipedia, and one from Abela. You are welcome to check my citations if you so desire.

"For some UL means a BW of 12 pounds. Others 8 pounds. You are trying to arbitrarily apply some meaningless number with ignorance toward…"

Yes, I am trying to arbitrarily apply a meaningless number–as nothing has inherent meaning (see also: Camus, Sartre). But no, I am absolutely not ignorant towards other factors, and this tells me you've either not taken the time to read my posts in this thread or are being willfully obtuse. In my reply to Stuart I think I was quite clear about what constitutes the general pattern of "backpacking." Dare I say that most of us are not doing Andrew Skurka type adventures, and as I am sure you are well aware, his weights for his more involved and complex trips are well above 10lbs.

I strongly encourage you and everyone else to entertain the idea that there is a method to this madness. Take for instance something I think I am qualified to discuss, which is literature. In both my undergraduate and graduate studies, the question "what is literature?" and even "what is art?" were brought up, examined, challenged, etc. But it is beneficial to be able to point to say, Hamlet, and say conclusively "this is literature." There is a basic set of criteria that needs to be established, but obviously (and especially to those that study literature) there are gray areas and room for interpretation.

Anyhow, I get that calling e ignorant is a solid rhetorical device to try and make me look foolish. But it clearly has no substance and says more about you that me. Further more, I am prepared and indeed interested in having the discussions surrounding geographic location, season, size of the individual, length of trip, personal metabolic rate, fitness, etc, which are all situation and individual specific. That's kind of the point I had in mind in initiating a discussion of this sort, naturally.

"Not to mention, this type of process is done every few years by someone who is trying to feel special that their BW is so low."

Are you suggesting that this is what I am doing?

"Happy New Year."

Thanks and the same to you :)

spelt! – I generally agree with your first paragraph. But to grow as a community and not have our theory and technique get stagnant, we ought to address these challenges, which is what I am attempting to do. Yes of course whatever set we might agree on in general (if this is even possible) will not apply to some, if not a significant portion of people that are interested in lightweight backpacking. But we'd be closer to figuring out some practical solutions for lightweight backpacking–i.e. what weight is a good goal for what kind of conditions, locations, etc.?

I think we are fairly close–at least from my own observations, feel free to chime in here–to being able to uncontroversially explain how and why a BPW between X-Y for 3 season use on marked hiking trails is good to have for X, Y, and Z reasons. This happens all the time organically in the "Gear Lists" forum. Someone asks for advice on how much to take for a given trail and time of year, others who have experience chime in and suggest/debate the alternatives. When was the last time you saw someone suggest that a person take a 25lb BPW for the JMT in the summertime? Or a 2lb BPW for a thru-hike of the CDT?

"Ultimately I'm more interested in why people want to go lighter, and how they make the decisions to do that, than I am in categorizing the results."

Not sure if this would give you a certified PoMo card ;), but I get what you are saying. I am interested in both, and think (as I have explained before) there are benefits from doing an objective, non-judgmental, non-elitist, non-absolute categorization. I think this is not only possible, but we do it all the time, and think my example given earlier of a cracker with jam on it not being a pizza still holds.

I don't get why BPL staff themselves have not tried to sit down and work all this out, but considering some of the not-so-productive replies in this thread, I can sympathize with them for not wanting to open this admitted can of worms. I laud Abela for taking the time to write his own personal definitions and thoughts on the matter on his site. But what happens if someone else creates a lightweight backpacking site and says that 15lbs is the new UL? Or 25lbs? Even if they (like Abela) say that it is just their own personal definition, like it or not others will cite them as sources if they gain enough readership/following.

Thanks for your constructive and well thought out feedback, btw, it is much appreciated. This thread actually became more interesting than I thought it would be, and this is mostly due to people giving their own thoughtful insights on the matter.

Ian – First of all, no worries about being rude–your reply didn't come off that way to me. I had considered your suggestion about just coming up with my own references on my blog, but decided to take things a bit further when realizing that eventually I would most likely get people saying things like "But UL is defined as X, I read it on X website/book." I've already seen people apply definitions of UL (mostly the common wiki one, but at times Abela's too) not only here, but on youtube comments, reddit, etc. Then there are people like this guy who throw a monkey wrench into the numbers by calling his kit "tactical ultralight":

http://youtu.be/tmNd-voII2g

I don't see the comment there now, but when I first stumbled upon this video about a year ago (I think) someone mentioned that UL BPing is generally considered to be less than 10lbs, to which the guy who made the video responded that he and his community define as UL. This might be confusing, especially for someone unfamiliar with UL BPing.

I don't view any of these definitions as "badges" just as useful ways to communicate. You also go on to prove my point about the usefulness of having an arbitrary goal in your reflection of going from 15lbs to 10lbs.

But in the future I have plans for a bigger project on my blog where I lay out everything I use based on what the weather will be like and if I am going on or off trail. These I have found to be the two biggest factors in determining my gear list and thus weights. It is going to take more time and planning to finish, of course, but I will be sure to throw up a link here when it is ready.

Thanks for your feedback. I too am a big fan of Carlin, but I'd have to respectfully disagree with him about symbols. We all have to deal with them, like it or not. What is language, if not a collection of symbols, signs, signifiers, and the signified?

[Cesar Valdez]

In my last post I linked to a video where a man shows off his "tactical ultralight". I linked to a newer video of the same guy in my hasty search, but I went back and found the older video I was thinking about to start with:

http://youtu.be/KI_FIBQU1cM

Which explains why I couldn't see the comment about UL definitions in the other video. In the above older video, you can see Keith Stevens say:

"Great video and some really cool gear. UL is described as having a base weight (all gear minus food and water/consumables) of 10 lbs or less. LOL. I don't think you made it brother. Good times. Keep on keepin on."

To which the guy in the video replies:

" I think that is open to interpretation, the community I follow says 20 Lbs all in is ultralight, my system is going to be referred to as "Tactical Ultralight" which is about 25 Lbs all in, and yes I know there is no such thing I just made it up, TL that is. You are right I am not at 10 Lbs base, more like 15 with all gear less food and water. Like I said I am working on it and will get it down to about 12 Lbs, I will be happy with that. Thanks for the comment, post your system up so I can learn?"

Which I thought was nice, seeing both of them friendly, tolerant, and constructive. Though this all illustrates one of my points about things getting confusing.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

I see value in having general definitions, even though there are a number of reasons why they don't perfectly apply to every situation. We use definitions because they are helpful, not because they are perfect. For example, the government defines the fuel economy of cars even though a ton of real world factors affect this. Despite being imperfect to our individual usage, these ratings are still helpful.

If nothing else, a definition gives aspiring hikers a ballpark idea of what UL is. It doesn't have to be an absolute definition (ie. UL = X lbs), rather it can be more loosely defined (ie. UL philosophy commonly leads to baseweights around 10 lbs for 3 season use").

[David Ure]

"For example, the government defines the fuel economy of cars even though a ton of real world factors affect this. Despite being imperfect to our individual usage, these ratings are still helpful."

Actually, the Feds do spell out exactly their testing methodology so at least one has parameters to compare to. Arbitrary backpacking weight limits do not, unless specified.

We already have loosely defined parameters for UL backpacking. Ray Jardine provided those a long time ago.

[Cesar Valdez]

Dan – Big +1 to your post. Could not have said it better myself, and it's a great summary of why I think it is important that we have this discussion. I'd personally like to see what you wrote (or something similar) added to the wikipedia entry: "UL philosophy commonly leads to baseweights around 10 lbs for 3 season use."

Dave – Thing is, if one wanted to (even if just for the sake of argument or to just be contrary), they could reject and/or poke holes in the Fed's definitions and terms. The Feds will never be able to account for all of the variables in a given test that could potentially affect the data. Again–all definitions and terms are arbitrary, as all language is arbitrary. But we have to do the best we can to communicate.

I agree that we already have loosely defined parameters for UL backpacking, but as I continue to point out, there are different definitions for these parameters and hence no consensus. And not everyone–myself included–is familiar with Jardine's definitions. What are they exactly? When did he create them? Are they still relevant? And why is it seemingly acceptable for him to set the parameters and not say, us as a community in a vote?

[Author]

Posts