- Sep 24, 2017 at 11:01 pm #3493034
I’ve just been comparing Andrew Skurka Alaska gear list to my own.
There is no way in a frozen era that I could match his base weight. A.S is a medium and even when I lose my heavy gutted spare tyre I am still going to have a 47 inch chest and 39inch arms.
This is a real problem for me when I shop online as every maker in the world seems to only give the weight for a Medium size. Has anybody here got a ball-park formula to approximate larger sizes from the makers Medium?Sep 25, 2017 at 4:25 am #3493050
Pick out a few XXL items you already have and weigh them, then get the published weights for the same items in M.
Use the formula XXL÷M to get a constant, which might be something like x1.372 that can be applied to published M weights provide the ballpark number you’re looking for.Sep 25, 2017 at 5:53 am #3493052
I can do that with my Patagucci nanopuffs in 2 types
I actually have 3 sizes in the L7 overparka here I’ll weigh them tomorrow and see if it’s consistent
I am bad with arithamenticals so I never thought of thatSep 25, 2017 at 7:09 am #3493059
MJ HBPL Member
If you have a constant, you’re assuming a linear relationship between the weights of the two sizes. To do this right, you should consider that the ratio of the weight of XXL to the weight of M may depend on the weight of the M. It’s easiest to just get a few dozen measurements and put the data in SAS or R.Sep 25, 2017 at 8:32 am #3493065
Ken T.BPL Member
I’ll say a third to half again as heavy. Would not surprise me if some jackets are double the weight in a 2X compared to their medium counterpart.
On the flip side I take two steps for my partners three.Sep 25, 2017 at 11:23 am #3493092
Ryan TuckerBPL Member
When I first got into the LW movement in 2008 I thought the same thing. I was never going to approach some base weights because I will always have broad shoulders and tree trunk legs. In 2014ish I did manage to drop 30lbs of my own weight which still puts me in the upper 230’s. Hiking is much easier! ;)
Even with weight loss my pack, bag, pad, clothes, etc…will always weigh more than someone smaller who has a similar level/need of comfort, etc…I guess I would say don’t stress on it to much. One aspect of being bigger is I can carry more (theoretically) and it not affect me as much.Sep 25, 2017 at 12:09 pm #3493107
Gary DunckelBPL Member
Calculating a constant might be a bit difficult, as the weight variations might be different for different manufacturers. My example is when I wanted to try out TNF’s Thermoball parka for snowshoe use. I found one at a serious discount (70% off), but all they had were a bunch of hideous lime green ones in size XL . I needed a L, but I bought one anyway. After learning that it of course was far too big for me, no matter how many layers I placed under it, I knew that it was a great coat and I had to get one the right size and color. Backcountry.com had one on sale, and in black (great color for the cold winter sunshine we get here in CO). So, the weights of the 2 coats – 14.7 oz in large, and 14.9 oz in XL. Not much of a difference, actually. I expected that the weights would be quite a bit different.
So maybe finding a reasonable “constant” would require averaging the results of several different companies. This could maybe be done by someone that works in a gear store, who could stay after hours and weigh a slew of coats, parkas, and insulated pants made by 5-6 different companies. Whew, what a job that would be…Sep 25, 2017 at 4:24 pm #3493160
But it isn’t just the weight of the clothing I realise.
A.S used a sleeping bag very close to my own and could layer up inside it with all of the cold weather gear, I can’t do that so I have to have an extra layer over the top as well as the single layer inside.
Plus the gear is a little more bulky and may need a bigger pack.
While the individual grams may not be great they do add up; especially in winter where you have 5 full layers and I am thinking of deep winter here.
Today I will try and weigh my gear and compare to the Patagonia website and weights for medium sizesSep 25, 2017 at 4:39 pm #3493161
Andy BernerBPL Member
I recently put together a lightweight kit for my wife. With gear good down to freezing her pack weights nothing to my size XL gear.
To feel better, I always compare body weight to pack weight ratio %. It’s how I feel the lightweight categories should be broken down to not by an actual lbs. 15 lbs to someone who is 200 lbs is not the same as some who is 150 or 125lbs.Sep 25, 2017 at 6:21 pm #3493173
Nathan WattsBPL Member
“15 lbs to someone who is 200 lbs is not the same as some who is 150 or 125lbs.”
how about flipping this around a little bit. A well “insulated” individual probably doesn’t need to carry as much insulation for the same conditions, right? 😉
of course that same individual probably needs to carry more food for the same length trip.Sep 26, 2017 at 4:59 am #3493235
To feel better, I always compare body weight to pack weight ratio %. It’s how I feel the lightweight categories should be broken down to not by an actual lbs. 15 lbs to someone who is 200 lbs is not the same as some who is 150 or 125lbs.
Depends upon the nature of the additional weight, whether fat or muscle. ;^)
Depends upon the comparative fitness level.
The average healthy human heart weighs about 400g whether a person weighs 100 lbs or 250 lbs and must “work” harder to move the total load (hiker plus pack) for the bigger person, even if both are fit… all else being equal.
‘”All else being equal” would be something such as the Tour de France where all the athletes are supremely fit, but on the mountain stages of the race the slightly bigger and more muscular sprinters inevitably lag behind. The cardiovascular system has its limits.
As pertains to backpacking, of course a “trail fit” larger person will, on average, have an easier time of it than an untrained, inexperienced and inefficient smaller person.Nov 14, 2017 at 7:18 pm #3502111
Sam CBPL Member
While I am not a XXL, I do move between L and XL. I am also tall and even back in my M days I still had the shoulders of linebacker I was told. Because of my size; because my clothes require more fabric, because my quilt or bag require more fabric, because my shelter requires more fabric, because I require a little bit more water and food, and thus, because I require a larger pack, and because I have more muscle to carry all of this “extra” weight, because I have been hiking on a regular basis close to 30 years now (about 85% day hikes, I admit), I don’t bother with attempting to achieve an ideal UL base-weight, and in part, is why I do not subscribe to the UL philosophy. I am, however, simply a lightweight hiker.Nov 14, 2017 at 8:08 pm #3502123
I’ve read here and there the phrase “UL is dead,” and more than a few heavy-hauler types have seized upon the headline as vindication of their preference to carry a bunch of heavy (durable! reliable!) gear and unnecessary “comfort” items.
If one reads deeper, what the writers are
click-baitingsaying is that the UL label and corresponding weight targets have outlived their usefulness and that we should not try to cut corners merely to achieve a certain backpack base weight. Of course, they can say that now, after the pursuit of UL has led to the birth of many cottage gear producers who have made UL kit available to the masses.
Nowadays, after a few years learning and honing my UL skills and obtaining and tweaking my gear and clothing, my base can range anywhere from 6 lbs for nice summer weather to 14 lbs (and maybe a bit more) for winter… down to about -10°F.
I pack for the conditions, and the pack weighs what it weighs. It sounds like that’s what you’re doing.
But I’m NEVER going back to carrying unnecessarily heavy stuff and a lot of “luxury” items — why would I?
However, I remain committed to the HYOH philosophy as well, and if people still want to suffer under these ponderously heavy loads I couldn’t care less — I’m not the one carrying it. I proselytize about UL only when asked, and I terminate the sermon immediately when there is the slightest hint resistance or disinterest.Nov 15, 2017 at 11:09 am #3502232
Bob I agree
In my initial post I was perhaps asking if chasing a 12 kilo winter load was possible given the size issue; I walk for pleasure, if I didn’t I’d be in the infantry.
I keep the weight of my gear as low as possible consistent with my own idea of comfort and safety, sometimes this means I carry more weight but it is as low as I can within my budget
Also I haven’t made the time to take everything out of storage and weigh it although I should because I need to get my gear into a 22 kilo suitcase for my trip over so choices will need to be madeNov 21, 2017 at 9:52 pm #3503366
jared hBPL Member
maybe we should modify the definition of UL to be X lb medium-equivalent. or maybe a % of body weight. seems fair to include those XXL guys whose gear would be much lighter if they were 5’8″ 160.
most of my weight concerns are around fleece and insulation…comparing warmth [to weight]. i usually just compare the jackets in medium and assume the manufacturer will scale the warmth/weight appropriately to all sizes. probably work for all types of gear. would at least be able to buy the lightest gear available in your size…not sure you can get much better.Nov 21, 2017 at 10:24 pm #3503370
Mina LoomisBPL Member
@elmvineLocale: Central Texas
Then there’s this. I think it was discussed on these forums at the time.Jan 8, 2018 at 9:14 pm #3511337
@beendareLocale: SF Bay area
I too chuckle at some of the weights on some gear lists…. try packing a suitcase for an extended bowhunt or trip with size 14 boots.Jan 8, 2018 at 9:53 pm #3511342
I experience weight penalties for being a small size. Not much comes in xtra small sizes unless it’s children’s wear so usually lower quality and heavier. Sleeping bags are always way too long as are pads, hammocks, tarps and tents. Hiking poles telescope in so much that there is plenty of useless weight ( also…pole straps are twice the length they need to be for me). The list goes on. I know us small folks pack more strength per inch but still….Jan 11, 2018 at 9:25 pm #3511899
Kat I get where you are coming from
My “Ex” was shy of five feet tall, but luckily Egge of Switzerland was still around then and Egge catered for smaller peopleJan 12, 2018 at 3:58 am #3511961
Todd TBPL Member
@texasbbLocale: Pacific Northwest
I experience weight penalties for being a small size.
I guess that’s similar to my weight penalty for being tall (but not all that big). It’s a matter of limited choice almost as much as the larger sizes. There are beaucoup options for regular people and big+tall people, but relatively few for just tall people. I’d never thought about tiny folk having a similar issue.Jan 16, 2018 at 3:00 pm #3512731
Dean F.BPL Member
@acrosomeLocale: Back in the Front Range
Here you go, all you need to know about adjusting for body size:
The fun starts on the second page. Hold off on crunching your own numbers until you get to the idealized HAPWE and EPW. It is important to remember that R does not include consumables such as food and water- as with Base Pack Weight, leave consumables out of it.
:)Jan 16, 2018 at 3:57 pm #3512745
Ah yes, I remember that one. The conclusion seems to be that we little folks are stronger and can/should handle more weight per inch carried but can handle less weight per inch on our bodies. Harsh indeed ;)Jan 16, 2018 at 8:44 pm #3512781
Dean F.BPL Member
@acrosomeLocale: Back in the Front Range
I’m not parsing that, Kat. What do you mean? The proposition is that smaller people buy smaller clothing, sleeping bags, shelters, etc., so it’s (marginally) easier for them to have a lower pack weight. That’s the proposition.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.