Welcome, guest [login | register]

Posted by Bill S on October 20, 2006 at 1:09:03 pm EDT
In reply to Re: This might be a stupid question but.... posted by Kirby on October 20, 2006 at 10:54:20 am EDT

Kirby said
"Ultra-light gear is ultra-expensive. No one yet mentioned that. For some of us, this is quite relevant. For example, I own a perfectly usable older model cansister stove that weighs at 6oz. I could dump it and pay $40-70 for one of the newer UL stoves that weighs 3 oz. Is a 3 oz shaving off pack weight worth the extra cash? Sometimes I have to grin and...um...bear it."

Ummm, Kirby, I will have to disagree strongly with that first sentence. If you will read Ray Jardine's book "Beyond Backpacking", he gives a lot of directions to making your own gear and otherwise going the "RayWay", which is the extreme of ultralight (Ray claims it isn't "extreme", but it really is). You can lighten your load a lot by doing simple things like keeping track of what you are putting in your pack and after each trip, writing down whether you used each item or not (yeah, some items of emergency gear you hope you never use, but you better take them anyway).

You can cut 3-4 pounds off the pack, just by looking at what you buy in the first place, and probably pay less for it. For example, I have an expedition pack (top line) that weighs about 7 pounds empty that cost over double another pack of almost the same capacity that weighs 3 pounds and is just as comfortable with the same gear in it. The price difference was a couple hundred bucks. When going very light for a weekend, I sometimes use a pack that weighs about a pound, and is plenty comfortable for the light load, besides costing even less than the 3 pound pack I mentioned. These packs directly contradict your statement that "ultralight is ultraexpensive).

Sleeping bags are harder to compare, since quality of a sleeping bag (hence long term usability) is a direct function of initial price. I see parents buying their your scout a cheap sleeping bag that weighs more than 5 pounds, but is only good for warm summer camping and falls apart in a season. In that case, the $50 bag is very expensive compared to the $150 bag (3 pounds, good from early spring to late fall) that lasts the kid's 5 to 8 year career in scouting (less than $30/year, compared to $50 for one short season).

The pack and sleeping bag are the heaviest single items in your pack, along with the tent. There are inexpensive ways to cut the weight of a tent, as well. A tarp, as has been discussed here many times, weighs 1-2 pounds for one adequate for spring through fall camping in many parts of the country (Sierra, Rockies, deep South where Ed lives), and costs $10 (or if you use a plastic drop cloth as I sometimes do, less than $1 - and that's only a half pound).

You don't have to go to a 3 ounce stove if you already have an adequate 6 ounce one (some would call a 6 ounce stove top already "ultralight", compared to a liquid fuel stove). And if you look around, you will find stoves under 6 ounces for no more than your 6 ouncer. Besides, you aren't counting the fuel canisters in your 6 oz. Again, if you really want to go ultralight, a "Pepsi can" stove is free (just get an empty Pepsi can from the trash and cut it in half). The alcohol fuel is lighter than that butane canister for the same heat output, and works just fine for most cooking. "Free" is a heck of a lot cheaper than any canister stove.

As a reference point, my typical pack for a 3-4 day weekend from March through November (or all 12 months in the local hills within 75 miles of my house) is 15 pounds base weight, including pack, sleeping bag, my half of the tent, canister stove, cook pot, cup, sleeping pad, rain gear, warm jacket for cool nights, water bottle, and a small camera. Food adds another 2 pounds per day (I include things like fresh fruit anc cheese which require no rehydrating but weigh more), water adds however much I have in the water bottle (70 ounces if I am using my Camelbak, which I drink down fairly rapidly), and fuel (2 ounces weight per day, shared with Barb). Total is 25 pounds roughly for the 3-day weekend at the trailhead (actually cut half the water weight to get the average during the day, and the food is gone by return to the car).

Anyway, the main point is - you can cut the weight of your pack by just considering what you are putting in it. And if you do it right, you will cut the cost as well, certainly for the long run, when you amortize your sleeping bag over 10 years, the tent over 15 years, and the pack over 20 years as I do.

Replies

View: flat | threaded

• Re: This might be a stupid question but.... - Kirby 20:51:55 10/20/2006
  • Re: This might be a stupid question but.... - Bill S 20:58:09 10/20/2006
• Re: This might be a stupid question but.... - Cowboypacker 14:51:12 10/20/2006
  • Re: This might be a stupid question but.... - Bill S 20:33:56 10/20/2006

Post a Reply

Before replying, please read the complete thread.