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

[spelt with a t]

My trips are important to me, but frankly they are crap compared to the trips of people who do post reports. Part of that statement comes from my unhealthy level of self-deprecation, and part is just plain truth. I don't go spectacular places, nor do particularly spectacular things.

I write in my own journal about what I do, and it's more personal reflection than anything suitable for an audience.

I try to comment on every report I read, and make a point of reading ones that aren't about the Sierras. Anyone posting their trips gets my respect for putting themselves out there. I would love to see more trip reports. But I suspect a lot of people are like me, and just don't feel their weekend trip in the local state forest measures up.

[BlackHatGuy]

"My trips are important to me, but frankly they are crap compared to the trips of people who do post reports."

I'd respectfully disagree. Trip report porn is almost as bad as gear porn. It's not a competition. Your trips, if they're meaningful to you, aren't crap compared to anyone else's.

Besides, while gorgeous scenery helps, it's not what makes a trip fantastic, at least not to me. The things that have made trips meaningful and memorable to me are stripping off my shoes and socks to cross a frigid creek with both Ike and I grinning like fools, or sharing a sacred spot high in the Sierra with Tom, or shaking my head slowly with a slight grin at yet another Evan pun, or sharing laughter around a campfire with groups both large and small, with friends both old and new. For me it's the shared human experience, and the trip reports I've enjoyed the most describe such things as much the scenery – Craig and Ike talking about the glee and wonder in the faces of their children, Luke talking about shared challenges with his brother, Tom talking about his yearly trips with his brother in law, Eugene taking about a small group huddled (with much jocularity) under a Trailstar in a heavy rain, that kind of thing. In fact I remember these parts of trip reports much more than I remember whatever they had to say about the terrain or scenery.

FWIW and all that, I guess.

[Stephen M]

:-)

[Eugene Smith]

The greatest conversation within BPL always resonates somewhere in the middle.

My take on the matter- gear is a means to an end, it's an important piece to the individual experiences we create, and we wouldn't be here sharing our experience(s) if not for the gear to begin with.

I'm encouraged to see the redirection this conversation has taken.

[Anonymous]

"FWIW and all that, I guess."

That pretty well sums it up, Doug. Very well articulated and on the mark, IMO.

[W I S N E R !]

One more thought to add concerning consensus SUL/UL/LW…

I have to second the sentiments put out there that these categories are absolutely meaningless without context.

I can, and have, done "SUL" trips without even thinking about it. Good weather in Southern California makes it a no-brainer and no big deal. Heck, I could go backpack in the summer in my local mountains with a one pound pack…But an "SUL" solo thru on the Sierra High Route in late October would be an entirely different proposition and would certainly raise a few eyebrows…as well as some potential safety issues.

Context.

[Edward Jursek]

I want a cabal of self proclaimed XUL, SUL and UL "elites" to impose arbitrary definitions and standards (oh God, in metric please!) and demand we follow them. We can then mock them, insult them, rail against them. Think of all the posts dripping with sarcasm and outrage! Engage in open rebellion, write philosophical UL manifestos that rip apart their meaningless standards. Seriously. I love that kind of stuff.

[Paul Magnanti]

http://softwareunderstanding.com/backpacking/weights.htm

"Ultralight vs. Lightweight Backpacking

by Ryan Jordan

October 6, 1999

To attempt to distinguish (in quantitative terms at least) "ultralight," "lightweight", and "normal" backpacking is to *****invite peaceful controversy at minimum and incite noticeable global conflict at worst**** (EMPHASIS MINE -pm].

However, this attempt serves some useful purposes: quantitative definitions allow us to identify appropriate classes of gear (e.g., "ultralight" or "lightweight", they provide a benchmark for comparing our own packweights, and offer some general guidelines as a starting point for readers new to ultralight and lightweight concepts."

[Cesar Valdez]

Mitch – I am sorry if you feel that I am being argumentative. My intentions are not to upset anyone. I will admit I was a bit frustrated by your replies, but tried my best to give a productive rebuttal. Please try and put yourself in my shoes. Imagine if you spent time and energy on a small project on your blog and with long replies on a thread here, only to have people admit to skimming and then mischaracterize your points.

As for my blog poll reflecting more information, I didn't have enough space on the poll to write very much, which is why it is right to the point. Which is why I wanted a text to accompany the poll, and in my defense I hedged forming a consensus on my blog post with things like:

"I can't stress enough how much I value questioning, re-evaluating, and re-defining ideas"

"here is how I personally define the wonderful world of arbitrary UL weight definitions"

"It's not a magic number, of course, but what I and others have observed is a good approximation of when things significantly improve"

"Obviously people can and will reject whatever set wins, or any other definition they don't agree with or like."

"Granted, this is not 100% scientific or anything, but it's a good approximation of the community's opinion on the matter if enough people vote"

I had assumed that people reading the text would see the above quotes as sign-posts against me suggesting any absolute, single set of numbers to define all of UL/SUL. And here in this thread, I have been abundantly clear about definitions being arbitrary, and not meaning to set anything in stone or an absolute.

John – Thanks for elaborating on the 12lbs UL definition of yours. I was just curious. I encourage you to add this clarification to your post.

The SXUL "joke" I still find confusing. You didn't address my questions about your sub 2lb BPW. You seemed pretty serious about it when you discussed it, unless I am missing something. And when you write about SXUL it really doesn't come off as a joke:

"SXUL – Super Extreme Ultra Light = Anybody with a BPW of under 2 pounds (0.907 kg). This, the most extreme of the extreme, is more about the ultimate test of your hiking and survival skills. While I do not endorse or encourage hiking for the sake of survivalism, you can learn a great deal about yourself and your skills by going on a sub-24, or maybe even a three day hike, with a sub 2 pound setup. It would be, I tend to think, rather difficult to go beyond three days of hiking with a sub 2 pound backpack, unless you are highly skilled in seeking and acquiring natural food and water sources, in all but the best of weather conditions."

You'd think if it was a joke you would have mentioned, alluded to, or linked to Gilmore's post–but you didn't. Honestly, this just comes off like you trying to distance yourself from a very extreme variation of backpacking that people might take issue with.

I don't really understand what you mean with your claim that my post is somehow objectively skewed. I gave 4 options that I felt were the best and most relevant choices for people familiar with UL backpacking. Please don't take offense here, but your counter point for all this I fail to see it as coherent:

"Because as it is, you just have people voting for the "metric" option and not even seriously considering the other options, just on that issue alone. That is called a skewed polling."

I don't have people voting, they vote for themselves. They are welcome to seriously consider the other options however they want. How does this equate to skewed polling? Seriously, I don't understand what you mean here.

As for your point about 200 triple crowners in a room… I don't know what they would say, and neither do you. We'd have to find 200 of them and ask them about this issue and let them express themselves. As for everyone else, I am not saying it is possible to get everyone to contribute to a consensus, but this does not mean we can't try and get something that is close enough.

I know we all have different goals and aspirations when we backpack and pound the miles. Just like everyone has different feelings and experiences when they eat pizza. I will repeat my firm belief that there is no inherent meaning in anything, language included. We as individuals give meaning to things, symbols, and words. But we have to agree on certain things otherwise communication is hindered or not possible. What I think you and everyone else needs to keep in mind is something I have said already several times about being able to answer basic questions about UL backpacking.

I founded and ran an outdoor/backpacking club while I was a grad student a few years ago. It was a lot of work, but also a lot of fun, and I introduced a lot of people new to the outdoors to backpacking in general. Many times people would ask simple questions like, "What is ultralight backpacking?" when I would say that it was my preferred style of backpacking. This would usually be followed up with questions about who came up with the weights and terms and such–remember, most of the people in my club were inquisitive people, being college students both undergrad and graduate level.

It was this experience that inspired me to try and re-configure the definitions and weights to metric, and the past year seeing a lack of any general explanation/definition on multiple UL forums compounded my interest in trying to solve this admittedly arbitrary, but I feel is a somewhat important issue and useful thing to have for our community and those wishing to join our community. As I expressed earlier, I think this is a pretty tricky community and sub-type of backpacking to get into that requires a lot of initiative from people. That alone I think ought to be addressed, and I think this is a simple way to do so–simple in theory at least, but as this thread has demonstrated, no simple at all in practice.

Which is fine. It's just words, man. :)

Nick – Just wanted to thank you for your continued contributions and for the very kind words you had for me. Know that I think your blog is cool and well executed, and you're one of my favorite personalities around here–even if we don't agree on certain things (but who agrees with everything?). You are asking valuable questions and I too give a big +1 to them, but I also think they can coexist along side a generally agreed upon definition.

Phew! That's all the time I have for now as far as replies go. I'm only half way through the 5th page too, so I need a breather before I get to any more replies. I am not going to be able to address everyone, obviously, but will try and get around to posts directed at me or things I think stand out.

Until next time, the current numbers in the poll are:

23 for Wiki
7 for Abela
10 for Metric
6 for me

I still think if we get to 100 votes it would be worth noting on wikipeida, and regardless of what happens I think that someone ought to update the UL entry there with some of the gems found in this thread. Now if we can only agree on what the gems are…

[Nick Gatel]

"You are asking valuable questions and I too give a big +1 to them, but I also think they can coexist along side a generally agreed upon definition."

There is nothing wrong with definitions, pe se. But what happens is that many people make a definition their goal, or try to define themselves or others by the definition. And we then lose focus on the journey; the hiking.

Instead of managing our inventory of gear, I would like to see more people manage their inventory of recreational days and talk about that. I enjoy reading blogs of folks who are out in the wilderness a lot, even if they have full time jobs and other commitments. These are the people who truly cherish the outdoors and place a high value on spending as much time as possible do it.

[Anonymous]

Cesar,

I think your suggested classification scheme is not great. Right now, people discuss pack weight in two ways. 1) Specific – the exact BPW and what's in it. 2) General – Light, Ultralight, SUL, etc. The general terms are only useful in relation to one another, as others have suggested, because they signify level of experience. It doesn't matter that UL is 10 or 12 pounds. It matters that UL is heavier than SUL. They work very well as a "rule of thumb" because they are quick and give a vague impression. Your scheme includes a formula which is not quick and also easy to forget. It focuses on numbers rather than differentiating experience level, so it loses the usefulness of the currently accepted UL, SUL, XUL system. If your system is not useful, nobody will use it.

Also, I agree that your poll is somewhat skewed. By including the metric system as a separate option, you've brought the metric vs. imperial debate into your poll. If your suggested values are good, I should be able to express them in stones, kilograms, pounds, whatever. I believe the core goal of your poll is to set values, not determine which measurement system is best.

[Paul Magnanti]

Partially because of this and similar threads, my .05 worth
http://www.pmags.com/backpacking-weight-mania

[Stephen M]

Nice article Mags :-)

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Perhaps we can contribute to form an organization known as "Base Weight Police".

They could team up with the NSA (No Such Agency) to watch our online gear lists, backpacking phone conversations and private in-person conversations and snail mail and then raid our homes to remove all non-UL gear we've listed, talked about or photographed and posted. I'm sure monitoring algorithms already exist. All they need is a backpacking vocabulary for the "watchwords".

This would certainly make one think twice before buying a silly lightweight frame pack or a regular length Thermarest Prolite. And Stock in companies making Cuben fiber would skyrocket, as would membership in Weight Watchers as nobody with more than 5% body fat would be permitted on trails.

Base Weight Police could also roam hiking trails to strictly enforce UL weight standards. That would surely take any boredom out of uninteresting stretches of trail. And we could make use of the emmerging aerial drone technology to exponentially increase enforcement capabilities. Drones could see things like external frame and military packs, all-leather shoes, Coleman Peak 1 stoves, etc.

Naturally after the Beta police force was deployed we could continue to finance training and deployment with a 25% tax on all backpacking gear. This is a no-brainer. Just ask 90% of the politicians.

I know of no other way to force backpackers to "see the light" (so to speak) than a "Base Weight Police Force". "Who would determine the correct seasonal base weights?" you ask. Well we just have to trust the BWPF to set them. After all they have our best interests at heart, just like the NSA.

Sorry, got to go and renew my ACLU membership.

[Roger Caffin]

> And we could make use of the emmerging aerial drone technology to exponentially
> increase enforcement capabilities. Drones could see things like external frame
> and military packs, all-leather shoes, Coleman Peak 1 stoves, etc.

Sounds like a boost to sales of 'Drone Loads'?

Cheers

[Cesar Valdez]

Ian – "I get the impression that you’re trying to set an industry standard and not much else. I’d love to hear more about what we'll gain especially if you could give specific examples. Again, not attacking… just want to understand where you're coming from."

No, I am not trying to set an industry standard, whatever that means. I have already mentioned what benefits there are. See the post where I replied to spelt! when she directly asked me essentially the same thing as you are asking here. I was also pretty specific in my last reply to Mitch, so that's another post to check out. Given the length of my posts I am trying to cut down and not repeat myself. I hope that will give you a better understanding.

Put it to you another way. It occurred to me that in another post Nick said "I do XUL, SUL, UL, and LW. None of them define me." And I agree with him. But notice that he is able to use those shorthand terms without issue? We all generally understand/understood him when he used those terms. It's not like we'd be able to glean anything from someone saying, "I do GBQ, ARR, XXW, and RB!H. None of them define me." That's incoherent. The other terms have meaning, and we get it. Yet there are some differences in the way people define them. I prefer metric, for instance. Others–like the person in the video I linked earlier–prefer to bring guns and other survival stuff along and consider this a variant of UL. There is confusion out there, and I think I have already demonstrated that.

Anyhow, sorry I missed your post directed at me. And thanks for your polite tone :)

Andrew – "Can't we just come up with a hard and fast rule that lets me know if I am enjoying my hike properly or if I need to spend more time with my spreadsheets and credit card?"

Just for the record (as there has already been a lot of confusion and glossing over of my points and intentions), I am not trying to come up with a hard and fast rule. Nor do I think people should spend more time on spreadsheets and consumerism rather than get out and hike. I agree that Nick's questions are nuanced, and this is good. But as I said to him before, we can have our cake and eat it too here: both ask these kinds of questions and have a general definition.

Roger – "Pack weight 5 lb 0.5 oz: result misery. Pack weight 4 lb 15.5 oz: result happiness."

I had missed this before. Yeah, no one is saying that, myself included. It's a pretty unfair characterization of the discussion. Just sayin'. But I know, I know–you're just using that Oz humor of yours, right?

Trip reports – I enjoy reading certain kinds of them.

Regarding this discussion, I am the one suggesting that we try and come up and then use a general consensus, yet I put up a fair amount of trip reports. More trip reports than gear lists. Then again, I also don't see being excited about gear and gear lists as a necessarily bad thing. I like playing with my gear sometimes, seeing if I can improve the different combinations, how it is packed, get upgrades, etc. I see a lot of us drool over gear on here. So what? Gear is cool. There are those that collect it, there are those that use it, and there are those that do both.

Craig – +1 on your point about context. I attempted to give a general context earlier, but it's not really been addressed as much. I even asked a few people if they thought it was accurate if memory serves me correctly, but no replies.

So I'll ask you: Do you think that the majority of trips on BPL (i.e. trip reports, gear lists/trip planning intentions, etc.) are for 3 season use in common geographic areas and on marked trails?

If so, I think that's a pretty handy context to have when talking about UL in general. If not, what do you think is the most common context of UL backpacking and why?

Paul – Thanks for taking the time to dig up quotes and such from books. And also for writing a whole big blog post on this issue. I have not had time yet (look at all my huge posts, damn it!) to read the whole thing, but I will eventually and try and get back to you. I appreciate your tone and contributions throughout this thread, sorry I have not gotten back to you until now.

Gabriel – "It matters that UL is heavier than SUL."

Okay. So it's cool if someone says that their UL load is 50lbs and that their interpretation of SUL is thus 25lbs?

"Your scheme includes a formula which is not quick and also easy to forget."

How is it not quick and why is it easy to forget? You're just giving bare assertions here without any explanations. I think my set is quick and easy to remember, especially considering it's metric, and it's only adding one new term (VUL). Plus it's divided into two categories based on the addition of CW, which makes it even easier to remember. I even note this on my blog, as if you are not concerned with CW, then all you have to remember is UL and SUL. If you are, then VUL and XUL might be for you. See? Easy.

"It focuses on numbers rather than differentiating experience level, so it loses the usefulness of the currently accepted UL, SUL, XUL system."

All of the sets focus on numbers, and how exactly do any of them differentiate experience level? And when you say "currently accepted" I assume you are appealing to the wikipedia entry. My poll and this thread proves that this is not really the case–other people prefer metric, for instance.

"By including the metric system as a separate option, you've brought the metric vs. imperial debate into your poll."

So what?

" If your suggested values are good, I should be able to express them in stones, kilograms, pounds, whatever."

You can express them in stones, kg, lbs, or whatever if you so desire. Go right ahead. What would stop you or anyone? I don't get your point here.

" I believe the core goal of your poll is to set values, not determine which measurement system is best."

I have tried my best to explain what my goals are in trying to reach a general consensus, and you are welcome to quote me to show how you have come to such a conclusion. I disagree with your assessment here. My intentions where to promote discourse and get a significant number of UL backpackers to (no pun intended) weigh in on the definitions and terms that define their hobby. There is already a set that most people think of when they think of UL weights, but clearly there other sets that people would prefer or do prefer over those. Your post is appreciated, but it's pretty vague. Perhaps you could be more specific should you choose to reply?

Also, I could not help but notice that that was your first post on BPL and you have not yet noted your location or set up your PMs. This is curious to me. You seem to have an informed opinion on the topic at hand, and felt the need to contribute to the discussion. But your first post? This strikes me as odd is all, if not a bit interesting. Care to elaborate on why it was this thread in particular that compelled you to post for the first time? And how long have you been a member for? Just curious.

Eric – Ah. How amusing. But seriously, I get that you're being funny and all, but no one (myself included) is suggesting absolute rules/definitions here. Take whatever you want with you. I really don't care. Cast iron pot and all. :)

Okay… all I have time for now. After the poll is closed I intend on writing a follow up post on my blog on my reflections on all this. Pretty sure at this point–and this was not beyond my expectations–that the poll won't get at least 100 votes and that trying to establish a general consensus of definitions, terms, and context for them ain't gonna happen. Which is fine. I thought it was worth a shot, and if anything, promote discourse–which I think has been accomplished to at least a small degree.

[Anonymous]

"Okay. So it's cool if someone says that their UL load is 50lbs and that their interpretation of SUL is thus 25lbs?"

If someone told me they went from UL to SUL, it would indicate to me that they believe they bumped up in backpacking experience, which is what the "UL/SUL comparison" is good for. Once they mention 25 lbs, I'll have a much better idea where they are in relation to myself.

"How is it not quick and why is it easy to forget?"

I only said your system is complicated because it's not as simple as the normal one. Some of your weight divisions include a weight in addition to BPW and some don't. The normal system is just a straight BPW scale. Easy to remember the gist, even if I forget the numbers for a moment.

"You can express them in stones, kg, lbs, or whatever if you so desire. Go right ahead. What would stop you or anyone? I don't get your point here."

My point is that you don't need separate poll options for metric and imperial. If I'm talking to someone who prefers metric, I'll tell them the weights in metric. If someone prefers imperial, I'll tell them the guidelines in imperial. To me, your metric and imperial poll entries are the same. I'm not concerned with a slight 1/2 pound imprecision when talking about guidelines like these.

Also this is my first post because I've been a lurker here til now. Long time backpacker though. The idea of weight definitons interested me and the discussion had helped me realize that I don't really care about specific weight numbers. A rough rule of thumb is fine.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Cesar

I think we have some cultural gaps here.

> Nick said "I do XUL, SUL, UL, and LW. None of them define me." And I agree with him.
> But notice that he is able to use those shorthand terms without issue?

I suspect what Nick was really saying was that his pack can have any weight he wants within a very broad range. I don't think he intended that anyone think he was using all those terms with any precision at all.

And yes, Oz humour before.

Cheers

[Ian]

Cesar,

Your response to Spelt!:

"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."

In my mind, this is an attempt to create an industry standard and there's nothing wrong with that.

To your OP,

To me, if I hear lightweight, I believe that it's a base weight under 20lbs, UL under 10lbs, and SUL under 5lbs. I'm a big guy who has to buy long sleeping bags, XXL jackets, etc and I like to hike in the Cascades so it's not difficult for me to have a base weight slightly below 12lbs. I don't feel the need to wail or gnash teeth because I didn't meet the UL threshold and don't see any reason to make a new subcategory of Chunky Dude UL / Mountain UL or anything like that. What's important to me is that I have a comfortable pack and gear that I trust while not going crazy with the what-ifs which add 30lbs to a pack.

I think three categories are sufficient but possibly make 15lbs the threshold for lightweight maybe. I voted on your poll days ago and look forward to reading the results.

[Nick Gatel]

"I suspect what Nick was really saying was that his pack can have any weight he wants within a very broad range. I don't think he intended that anyone think he was using all those terms with any precision at all."

Correct. No matter whose definition you use, I cover the spectrum depending upon the trip.

If I need precision, I am usually measuring something with a micrometer or dial indicator; in inches of course.

For several decades my base weight was under 20 lbs. Of course I was only interested in the FSO weight. I didn't know I was a "LW" backpacker until I joined BPL in 2008. Before that I was just an ordinary backpacker. For many years I was an auto mechanic. Then someone be-knighted us technicians.

[Nick Gatel]

Ryan Jordan's "claim to fame" maybe that he coined the name, SUL. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. But RJ is often synonymous with SUL.

Ryan, like many of, has grown and increased his knowledge over the years. It has been over 10 years since SUL became a common term here on BPL.

I suggest everyone go back and read these two articles. If they require a paid membership to read, then they are worth the price of admission to BPL.

In these articles Ryan discusses the SUL mindset and states that a defined base weight is irrelevant, and if one defines SUL only as sub 5 lb base weight, you have completely missed the point — in fact, he provides a SUL gear list that (gasp!) weighs over 8 lbs.

Ryan also says he rarely calculates his base weight any more, and suggests a 38 oz pack is a SUL pack! He further says he now usually just weighs his fully loaded pack, to include consumables.

It is time for all of us to mature and grow up, by walking away from these silos of classifications and weights.

Here are the links. Sorry I didn't make the links clickable, but I am in an airport in the northeast and need to board a plane in a few minutes.

So let's start over and just call everything lightweight backpacking.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/sul-mindset-jordan.html#.UtkcYX-9KSM

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/sul_mindset_part_2.html#.UtkdKH-9KSN

[David Ure]

Parameters should all be based on percentages of your bodyweight. It is then easy to compare across parameters that vary greatly, namely your own bodyweight. Something like:

-traditional backpacking is a base weight of 15% and under.
-lightweight backpacking is a base weight of 10% and under.
-ultralight backpacking is a base weight of 5% and under.
-SUL is a base weight of 2.5% and under.

[Art …]

Dave – your suggestion makes no sense at all.
it penalizes the healthy athletic types and rewards those who, well, are not.

a better set of definitions would be to combine body weight and pack weight for each category. I realize those who are naturally large would be penalized, but the reality is what it is, they'll simply never be SUL.

[David Ure]

"Dave – your suggestion makes no sense at all.
it penalizes the healthy athletic types and rewards those who, well, are not."

That is a strange response, Art.

How does it penalize those in shape? You have this backward. If you are athletic and in shape (and strong – not the undernourished marathon type of 'health'), you should be able to carry MORE. If anything, it penalizes those who are NOT in shape. Perhaps it would encourage them to strength train as we all know running sucks.

Get in shape and packweight matters less.

[Art …]

basing things on percent of body weight allows those with extra fat on their bones to have a higher weight in each category.

so say if someone who weighs 145 is having trouble hitting the SUL goal, he simply gains 20-30 lbs and voila … higher SUL lb limit …

in reality we're both being unrealistic. just do what we can and put the dang pack on our backs and head out the door.

[Author]

Posts