Bang for the buck

Posted by: dylansdad77

Bang for the buck - 04/20/15 07:49 PM

I have several options for "next purchase" to drop my overall pack weight. Below are the items that I have determined to be the most overweight (not including myself!) compared to what is more reasonable. I'd like some advice as to which item I should consider replacing first and, if you feel so inclined, perhaps offer some replacement suggestions.

Coleman 2 person tent 79.20oz (includes tent, poles, stakes and rain fly)
Sleeping Bag 36.25oz
Air Pad 31.20oz

Against my better judgement, I used SeaToSummit dry bags instead of a 3mil garbage bag so I know I can shave some ounces with better decisions. A few caveats:

- I rarely camp in weather below 30 degrees F, so anything rated above 20 should do the trick
- Mummy bags (or anything with a tapered foot box) does NOT work for me. I am going rectangular OR I might try a quilt
- I have considered trying one of those "dual temp" bags - any thoughts?
- Now that I've started using trekking poles, I may consider "pole-less" tents (I doubt that's the proper terminology)
- Understanding my air mattress is a creature comfort, I'd like to sleep on something rather than go without

Ideally, I need to shave a total of 6 pounds from my pack weight to reach my goal of sub-30. Any/all suggestions are appreciated...thx!
Posted by: wandering_daisy

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/20/15 08:56 PM

You do not have to go without a pad to be lighter than what you have. If you do not need a lot of insulation the Pro-Lite series work for me. My x-small is only 8 oz. I think the large is even under one pound. There are lighter pads out there, but the Pro-Lite pads do not cost an arm and leg like the others (REI price is around $70). So if $$ count, this may be the best option. New tents and sleeping bags can get very expensive.

If on the other hand, your tent is worn to the point of needing to be replaced anyway, then I would do that. You should easily be able to get a tent in the 3 pound or under range. Tents go on sale a lot. Keep looking and I bet you can get one for at least 30% off within the next few months.
Posted by: Glenn Roberts

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/20/15 09:53 PM

Daisy is spot on about the Thermarest Prolite series (or, if you need a bit more comfort, the Prolite Plus - if you have a nearby store, go lay down on one for at least 10 minutes.) They are a cost-effective solution at a very tolerable weight. I used them with no complaints for about 10 years, and replaced them with a NeoAir eventually. The pad is probably an easy, 1-pound-saved fix at a reasonable cost.

Before discussing your sleeping bag, we need to know the temperature rating. 36 ounces isn't hatefully heavy for a 20-degree bag. If it is rated that low, you'll probably save at most half a pound with a top-line bag - not enough to make it a priority, and it can go to the bottom of the list. If it's a 40-degree bag, you'll definitely want to replace it for the warmth - but you'll still only save about half a pound with a top-line 20 degree bag.

The tent should go to the top of the list. You can easily drop 2 pounds here with a double wall tent like a Big Agnes Copper Spur UL2 or MSR Hubba NX2. You can save 3 pounds with something like the Big Agnes Scout or MSR Flylite (due out in another month.) And, naturallly, the TarpTents will probably maximize weight savings. The single-wall tents may present some condensation problems, depending on the conditions in which you'll use it. If it doesn, then a simple silnylon tarp and groundcloth might be a solution, too. Again, without more information on how you'll use it, it's a little tough to make specific recommnedations, though the foregoing may point you in the right direction(s).

For sleeping bags, the Western Mountaineering Megalite and/or Mitylite might work. Neither are true mummy bags, and the Mitylite is nearly rectangular. Each weighs about a pound and a half (and the MityLite can be used as a quilt. This year, I'm experimenting with two Thermarest bags: the Antares and the Auriga (a quilt). Both are a bit roomier, and so far the Antares has kept me warm in shorts and a T-shirt on a 28-degree night. There are other quilt options in the Thermarest line. There are also warmer quilts available from other manufacturers that receive high ratings (other posters can help: Jacks R Better? Feathered Friends? others?)

Now, tell us about your trail kitchen and eating habits. Sometimes, that's a no-cost weight loss just by rethinking your menus and meal preparation process.
Posted by: topshot

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/20/15 10:01 PM

What is your budget?

I don't find your bag overly heavy (mine is 29 oz and my base weight is under 14 pounds with my 2-person tent). Your pad is pretty heavy. Even the heavy ones I had gotten first were only 24 oz. Now I use Neoair Xlite large (for the width) which is a bit over 15 oz I think so that would save you a pound.

The tent is where you can make the biggest gain. Assuming you can't manage a tarp, a tarptent would likely be your best bet or one of the lighter ones from Big Agnes. If money isn't an issue, a cuben one (see Zpacks for example) would be the lightest but they are very pricy.

I'm curious what all else you are carrying. Your 3 items here are about 9 pounds and your total is over 30. My 3 items are < 6 (about 3.5 < you) yet my total is < half of your's??? What are you including in your total?
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 12:24 AM

I'd also say the tent. Look at the offerings from Tarptent.com. They are significantly roomier and lighter than the others mentioned here. You should be able to save about 2.5 lbs for a 2 person tent or 3 lbs. for a 1 person tent.

But do look at all the rest of your gear. One of those "guidelines" for a lighter pack is that your "Big 4" (pack, tent, sleeping bag, sleeping pad) should be approximately half of your "base weight" (which equals everything except food, water, fuel) and "everything else" should be the other half. While you're looking for a lighter tent, work on the "everything else."

Particularly look at your clothing. If, like many people, you're taking several changes of clothing, for example, you're taking too much (my clean clothing, except for socks, stays in my car to change to for the drive home). I take as much clothing as I need to stay warm and dry, wearing all the items at the same time, in the lowest temperatures I could possibly expect (definitely lower than the average low, more like 5*F above the record low for the time of year), plus an extra pair or two of socks. In practice, that means my base layer stays dry in my pack in the daytime and gets worn at night in my sleeping bag, and probably in the early morning until I'm ready to pack up. Very seldom is it so cold that I have to wear the base layer for active hiking in the daytime. I therefore have a clean, dry layer to wear at night.

One good idea is to put a tiny piece of masking tape on each item before a trip. When you use that item, remove the masking tape. After the trip, go through and pull out every item that still has the tape on--it's a candidate to leave home next time. Of course, do use common sense--just because it doesn't rain for one trip doesn't mean you leave the rain gear home next time!

There are several gear lists on this site. Take a look at the "27-pound, 7-day gear list" on the home page of this site, left hand column. Also take a look at Phat's sticky post at the beginning of the Backcountry Beginners section. It has a good link to his gear lists. Comparing these lists to yours will be a big help in prioritizing what you need and what you don't need.

The other exercise I recommend requires only a scale, preferably an electronic postage scale which you can get pretty cheap. Weigh each individual item and note its weight on a computer spreadsheet. Be sure to classify the items by "system" as done in the gear lists I linked to above. Just this exercise will identify several items for elimination or replacement, either because you can easily find other versions or because they duplicate items you already have. This exercise also gives you a good gear list with real (not manufacturer marketing department) weights to compare to other lists, a means to evaluate possible new purchases (although weight shouldn't be the only criterion) and a handy-dandy checklist to print out when packing for each trip.
Posted by: dylansdad77

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 01:57 PM

So I will attempt to answer several questions in this post...

#1 My current bag is a 20 degree bag, although I never get the full warmth capabilities out of it because i use it more like a blanket

#2. My "trail kitchen" looks like this:
JetBoil 13.70oz
Fuel Canister 7.10oz
Stainless Steel Mug 7.65oz
Titanium Spork 0.30oz

Typical breakfast = 2 oatmeal packets and a satchet of instant coffee
Dinner is usually a Mountain House meal
I seldom eat lunch on the trail, i just nosh on homemade GORP throughout the day

#3 My budget for a sleeping pad is $150. My budget for a tent is probably around $300. I might consider going slightly over budget if I fell in love with something...

#4 I purchased a small digital scale and weighed pretty much everything I pack...except for the food (I will start doing that)

2 things I KNOW I did wrong on this trip. 1 - I packed too much water (4 liters). Considering I brought 2 filters with me, that was overkill. Although the gentleman I met on top of one of the mountains had a dog that was thoroughly grateful for one of those liters...he was a cute dog, so it was worth it! 2 - I packed too much clothing. I tried to pack for worst case scenario, but brought probably a pound's worth of clothing that was not necessary.

If I shave off the 2 liters of water and clothing alone, that is approximatey 5.4 pounds off pack weight (the water killed me). However, this is based on 2 hikers sharing communal weight. If I carried all the necessities, I would still have some weight-saving to do.

Based on the responses so far (thank you very much, btw), I will set my sights on a new shelter (notice I didn't just say tent).

Between better fitness levels, a lighter pack and better decision making, I will be putting more miles between the TH and camp. Thanks!
Posted by: Rick_D

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 02:05 PM

Will just second the tent and pad being the most obvious targets for quick weight reduction. Should be able to cut shelter weight in half and pad/mattress by two-thirds. The bag is tougher, if only because ruling out mummy bags slashes the choices. A down quilt, if acceptable, would half that weight and slash bulk to the point you can have a much smaller backpack. The good news: at 2 pounds your bag isn't a big offender.

Camp kitchen can be simplified/lightened a lot. A home-made alcy burner, lightweight pot and cup can save a couple pounds.

Don't do everything in one week! eek

Cheers,
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 02:54 PM

Where I hike (Pacific NW mountains) there are frequent water sources, so I carry only half a liter at a time. If I'm on a ridgeline hike or I can't tell from map or trail guide about water sources, 1 liter. Water is heavy! It's also easier to carry in my tummy than on my back, so I "camel up" before leaving trailhead or camp and at each water source when refilling my water bottle. If I know it's an all-day dry hike, I take a maximum of 2 liters (that's 8 pounds!). The only time I'd carry more is if I am pretty sure that in addition to the dry day, I'll have to dry camp. I try to avoid such situations!

Of course you may have more of a problem of heavily chemically polluted sources where you are, which could make a difference.

2 filters is overkill, too. A filter weighs a lot more once it's wet. I take some chlorine dioxide tablets (less than an ounce) for backup in case the filter dies. If you want to take a second filter (or anything else) to try it out, fine, but maybe on a shorter trip?
Posted by: Glenn Roberts

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 05:39 PM

I second the water and duplicate filter comments. Mouse, as usual, is dead on in both cases. Here in the east, I normally carry 1 liter, which is just about right most of the time (sometimes, but not often, I'll arrive at a source with more than a few sips left.)

However, I do carry spare capacity in the form of the 4-liter "dirty water" bag that comes with my Platy Gravityworks filter. If I'm going to make a "dry" camp, I'll use it to carry extra water to the campsite from the last source before camp (rarely more than a mile.)
Posted by: Glenn Roberts

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 05:43 PM

Kitchen isn't too bad, but lose the mug - that's half a pound by itself. Your Jetboil pot is a mug, and the little plastic cup works great for breakfast: oatmeal in the cup, coffee in the pot. Lunch: I do the same thing. Supper: prepare the meal in the bag; this frees up the pot for a hot beverage if you want one. (If you don't like eating from the bag, drink water with your meal (prepared in the pot), then have a hot beverage afterwards using the same pot.

Do you end up the trip with leftover trail mix and snacks? If so, reduce the amount you take to save some weight.
Posted by: Glenn Roberts

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 05:52 PM

TarpTents are lighter, and I'd forgotten about the room. In fact, if you are traveling alone, the extra room of something like the Rainbow (the only one I'm familiar with personally) might mean you wouldn't need a two-person tent.

However, as I recall, you mostly hike with your son? In that case, you'll definitely want the two person version, but you'll be amazed at the extra room.

I'd probably be using a Tarptent except for one issue that is specific to the area and season in which I hike: the Ohio River Valley, in the summer, is hot and humid. If you set up a tent with the rainfly, it focuses the heat and becomes stiflingly hot. With the MSR Hubba (or Carbon Reflex, a lighter version of the Hubba), I can pitch it without the fly and take advantage of all that mesh to avoid the buildup of heat. With the TarpTent (or other single-wall tent), the rainfly is always on and the heat builds up. (I spent a summer with a Rainbow, and couldn't solve that puzzle.) However, if I were hiking just about anywhere west of the Mississippi, I'd be using a Tarptent in a heartbeat. They're well-made, well-designed, and a great choice. Except in Ohio and Kentucky. In the summer. smile
Posted by: wandering_daisy

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/21/15 05:54 PM

Think seriously about everything you take. For example, even when I have to gut fish, I only take a 1-oz paring knife. It is a cheap $2 one from WalMart. It does not hold the edge long (good for a week gutting fish), then I throw it and use another. I use old vinegar bottles for water. Old pop bottles or water bottles are even lighter but weaker. I quit using Nalgene bottles years ago!

Only take exactly what you need in personal items. The small travel size toothpaste, smallest sunscreen bottle, etc. I have titanium pots and cup. Even for a 10-day trip, I only need one pot with lid, spork and cup. I have few electronic gadgets. The only spare battery I take is for my camera. I have the smallest, lightest head lamp. Sometimes I only take the small key-chain light. I only take a repair gear on long trips. I check gear before I go and have never had anything break on an overnight trip. I only take spare shoes (crocks) if I anticipate many creek crossings daily. No towel - I wipe off with my undershirt then wash the undershirt at the end of each day. First aid is minimal. I know the FS people do not like this, but I do not take a trowel. It takes a bit longer but I have always been able to dig a "cat hole" with a stick, rock, or tent peg.

Food is very personal. Just keep track of what you bring back. I have mine now figured just right - only a few ounces left, if any at all, at the end of the trip.

I am like OM - I only carry 1 liter water, often less and use chlorine dioxide tablets. I used a Sawyer Squeeze on my last trip and was pleased with it. It allows you to filter only what you drink at each rest stop.

The more experienced you get the more comfortable you will feel about being more "minimalist". You have to decide if the "comfort" you get in camp is worth the weight of a "comfort" item. The actual "necessities" for backpacking are really minimal. On my spreadsheet I code my items as must have and nice to have. I only allow 1-2 pounds of "nice to have" items. If a major goal of your trip is fishing, then of course, some minimal fishing gear will be a "must have". One of my main reasons for backpacking is photography, so I take a camera. My camera is 8 oz.- not the lightest but suits my needs.

I looked up the current price of the sleeping bag I now have- and if I had to buy it now it would be $700!! Reducing weight by buying a new sleeping bag can be very costly. So I agree with others. Save that until you get some unexpected windfall or gift.
Posted by: bluefish

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/22/15 06:49 AM

After I lightened up most of my base weight, I found that volume decreased enough to warrant a new pack. I replaced a 90 liter workhorse with a 60 l Granite Gear that chopped off another 2 1/2 lbs! Perhaps not a consideration, now, but may be an added benefit down the road. I even get away with the smaller pack in winter. I tried tarps by themselves, but have stuck with tents due to wind, dust, rain , and mosquitoes and black flies. If we were to replace our BA Fly Creek 2 , which has its downsides but has proven to be very reliable and durable, I'd be looking heavily at a TT Double Rainbow.
Posted by: billstephenson

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/22/15 02:48 PM

If you're doing short trips you might want to switch to a SuperCat Stove. That'll shave a little weight off.

I use origami plates/bowl/cup similar to these. They're light, easy to clean, and pack flat.

And I just picked up two of the lightweight, foldable, 1L water bottles at WalMart made by Outdoor Products. I've been using these for 3 years now and really like them. They're more durable than the bottles water is sold in, and lighter than plastic fruit juice bottles, and they pack flat when empty. I put a Britta charcoal filter in them which fits perfectly and can act as your back-up filter if needed. Just filter, then boil your water, and it's good.

I made my own UL shelter and, as I've said here many times before, I like it better than anything I see on the market regardless of price. It only cost me about $35 and a few evenings to make, but it's not at all stylish and won't impress your fellow backpackers much with it looks. It did however lighten my load by about 3 lbs, which I've enjoyed a lot.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/22/15 03:39 PM

It sounds as though some here may not have kept up with recent Tarptent.com models. They now have several double-wall tents in which either the inner net tent or the fly can be set up separately (Moment DW, Stratospire, Notch, Scarp). What's different with their tents is that, unlike the standard offerings available at REI, the fly on the Tarptent models is set up first so the inner tent doesn't get wet when it's pouring rain. The inner tent can clip to the fly so both can be set up together, with the inner tent staying dry.

Having been in SW Ohio in the summer several times, I wouldn't even be backpacking in such circumstances. We don't have that 100% humidity out here--well, only when it's cold--and combined with heat it just lays me low. The last time I visited Ohio was mid-October, which was perfect!
Posted by: Glenn Roberts

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/22/15 08:38 PM

You're right, Mouse - I haven't kept up; I may have to play catch-up. My failure may be due to the fact that I really, really like the Hubba/Carbon Reflex tents - especially the Hubba NX, which has a bit more room and can also be set up fly-first. Or fly-only, to provide a dry spot for lunch (I'm assuming the Tarptents can do this, too.)

Yeah, Ohio in summer is no treat - but, with my work season and other scheduling issues around family events, if I didn't backpack in Ohio in summer, I wouldn't backpack at all. And I'm not ready to go there yet.
Posted by: finallyME

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/23/15 09:46 AM

I will just say, I live in a desert, and I take 1 liter most of the time. Sometimes, I might take 2, but that is only if I am hiking in a really dry area. I used to carry a lot of water, but after passing multiple water sources with several liters still on my back...that was just stupid. The biggest weight savings I ever did was dropping a couple liters of water.
Posted by: dylansdad77

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/23/15 10:00 AM

Again, thanks for all the advice. I will not normally be bringing 2 filters with me, that was for trialing purposes only. I had a Sawyer Squeeze which worked beautifully and the recently purchased 4L Platypus GravityWorks - I had been dying to try it so I justified the added weight of bringing both.

I carry my water in a 2 liter Camelbak bladder stuffed into my pack and I was carrying 2-32oz Gatorade bottles. I did a comparitive study on the ratio of volumetric capacity versus weight and cost and the Gatorade bottles had the most favorable numbers (not to mention it makes me feel like I am recycling). If I can find that old spreadsheet, I will share the findings.

I used to finish trips with up to a pound or more of uneaten food, however, I've pared that down to less than half a pound. As I go on more trips, I will continue to fine tune the menu.

Lighter stove is definitely a great idea. I originally purchased the JetBoil for extended paddling trips when weight is less a consideration. For hiking, looks like I need to find a more weight-friendly alternative.

Same goes for the mug - I saw Bear Grylls use a similar mug and decided I wanted one too. But for the weight, it's just not practical.
Posted by: billstephenson

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/23/15 01:17 PM

Quote:
I will not normally be bringing 2 filters with me, that was for trialing purposes only.


I only use the charcoal filter I mentioned, but we have very good water where I hike. Many times I don't filter it at all. If I were hiking somewhere that the water was less than crystal clear I think I'd use the charcoal filter to pre-filter the water before filtering with a Sawyer Squeeze or Katadyn Hiker filter. This would surely extend the life of the Hiker filter, potentially by a lot, and should reduce how often you'd need to clean the Sawyer.

I've not used a Sawyer filter, but I did buy a Hiker filter a few years back and wasn't very happy with it. I busted the nipple off the outflow side by pulling on the hose after filtering very cold water with it, which didn't impress me at all. Hiker sent me a new body for free though without any questions, which was impressive.

But, after using a filter one time, the next time I'd use it I could detect what tasted to me like algae in it. Since replacement filters are expensive for those I was not impressed at all by that, and after buying the 3rd filter I stopped using it. If the Sawyer did the same thing I wouldn't use it. I've not heard of that being the case, but I never heard of it happening with the Hiker either.

The Sawyer has some attractive features though, and the price is a big one. So are the specs for performance, and the fact that you can clean the filter. The only real downside I'm aware of is that they can lock up. From what I've read here that happens when the filter has set for awhile, and maybe only when it hasn't been cleaned after use. But that's something that can be a deal breaker if it happens when you're out there.

The 1 or 2 ounces that a Britta filter weighs can be all or mostly offset by the bottle I use, so this is almost zero added weight for a piece of gear that offers a lot of function and a critical backup if your primary gear fails. And this set-up doesn't cost much. The bottle is $3 at WalMart (in the camping section) and the filter is about $3.50 (in the section that sells kitchen water filters).

That's a lot of bang for the buck.

Posted by: Rick_D

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/23/15 02:58 PM

Key to the Sawyer, and the Hiker cartridge for that matter, is at least at the end of the season run a dilute bleach solution through it to kill any bacteria, algae, mold, etc., then dry it out for storage.

Sawyer filters are hard to dry completely, so a preseason backflush is in order to clear any clogging (ask me how I know). Luckily, the Hiker cartridge drys quickly and completely.

Cheers,
Posted by: wandering_daisy

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/23/15 03:26 PM

I may have read some misinformation, but I thought the Brita filter did not filter out Giardia or, was it Crypto? and was only considered a filter to improve the taste of tap water.

Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/23/15 07:29 PM

That's also my understanding. It's strictly to filter out nasty taste and some minerals, There's no bacteriological filter. The faucet filter allegedly removes giardia and crypto, but not the pitcher nor the bottle. Per the brita website
Posted by: billstephenson

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/28/15 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By wandering_daisy
I may have read some misinformation, but I thought the Brita filter did not filter out Giardia or, was it Crypto? and was only considered a filter to improve the taste of tap water.



It's just an activated charcoal filter. From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Active charcoal carbon filters are most effective at removing chlorine, sediment, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), taste and odor from water. They are not effective at removing minerals, salts, and dissolved inorganic compounds.


If you use chlorine dioxide to purify water the Britta filter will remove or reduce what you'd consume. It's my own opinion that chlorinated water kills gut bugs, and that this can lead to all kinds of health issues, so I try not to consume that.

As far as Giardia and Crypto, I filter first, then boil my water if I'm concerned with that, but generally I'm not where I backpack. If I were gathering water from lakes or ponds I'd use a Sawyer or boil my water, but I'd still want to charcoal filter it first to keep the Sawyer as clean as possible while I'm out there.

As far as I know, the lightest, safe method to clean and disinfect water in the backcountry is the Britta filter I use combined with either boiling, sunlight, or chlorine.

There's obviously a lot of wiggle room in the above statement, but there's also truth in it. I enjoy the taste of good clean water as much or more than great beer and I notice it in every sip.
Posted by: 4evrplan

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/28/15 03:25 PM

I've been trying to come up with good ideas for a pre-filter system before I put dirty water through my Sawyer Mini. It really slows down fast with muddy water. Would you say the Brita continues to flow well even with hazy/muddy water? I've got a couple and have never used them.
Posted by: Rick_D

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/28/15 03:50 PM

It might. The answer probably hinges on whether the cloudiness is organic or inorganic (mineral). Organic is usually harder because of biofilms and other types of fouling, some of which can even occur in visibly clear water. Silt or clay particles can be more easily filtered mechanically, while some organics call for chemical pretreatment (because they'll clog anything).

Unless you need the charcoal for taste and odor, simple mechanical prefiltration with mesh, cloth or paper filter media will give better flow and be lighter/simpler. Something as basic as a mesh bag stretched over your collection bag opening, or a coffee drip cone and paper/cloth filter.

Rafters on muddy rivers often use buckets to settle the water before treating/filtering. While it's possible to carry a collapsable bucket backpacking, it's still bulky and it takes time for water to settle, even with flocing chemicals. I've thought about it for glacier-fed rivers, but we're shy on those in California these days.

Posted by: billstephenson

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/29/15 01:06 PM

I'll have to defer to the details in Rick's reply, but I'll add that it's pretty easy to set up the Britta to be as a gravity filter. The 1L flexible plastic "canteens" I use have a decent flow rate when used them this way.

I've not really filtered any murky water with them. I always get my water from clear streams or springs here, but I'd certainly give it a shot if I were you, and if you do I'd be very interested to hear how well it worked for you.

As I recall, Britta claims these filters are good for up to 50 gals of water. So, I'd think that it should do pretty good at filtering 5-10 gallons of water that was pretty muddied up, which should be more than enough for most trips and keep your Sawyer much cleaner.
Posted by: mschnaidt

Re: Bang for the buck - 04/29/15 03:24 PM

I've found this product to be great for getting rid of the funky taste from lake water and it has replaceable cartridges. Very light and easy to use.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00437WY32/ref=...D18OQ&psc=1

It's not a pre-filter however. I incorporate it into a gravity system after my Saywer Mini.
Posted by: Honas

Re: Bang for the buck - 05/24/15 05:12 AM

Check out the quilts from enlightened equipment. they seem to be good quality and a relatively well priced compared to other custom makers.
Posted by: bob1900

Re: Bang for the buck - 06/17/15 11:38 PM

wow, lots of info here.good!!