I agree that the VALUE of very fine gear for backpacking is potentially FAR greater than its cost, depending on your viewpoint.

I advocate its acquisition, without end.

But merely sleeping on the ground at 60 degrees doesn't take special skill nor experience nor equipment. Sixty is average low temp for July in mid-Appalachians.

For few nights or a week of ultralight summer backpacking the kit could be had for less than $100. Obviously you need something in which to carry your stuff (probably a backpack).


Bring long pants, a suit of long underwear, a hat and a couple of sweaters or something. You already own this stuff. Bring a sheet or light blanket to cover yourself, and find some foam or break up a medium-sized cardboard box for mattress.

Take a moldy shower curtain for a ground sheet, and another in case it rains (check forecast). Bug dope. Make a stove from soda cans or use a fire made of sticks. Use large coffee can for a pot.

First-Aid kit: Band-Aides, aspirin. Kitchen knife for slitting wrist or other tasks as needed.

You get the idea.

If you have a problem, take sleeping pills (Ambien). They are lightweight, effective and cheap.

Glenn,

It's hard to keep this in the spirit of carrying my brother 5 miles to school...

The original formula is cost per pound. But it fails to include the time factor.

Let's just say for the sake of having numbers.

The limit of cost as the weight approaches minimum possible is $4,000. (We need to add some calculus to appease the math majors.)

Of course we need two equations so we can the simplex method to solve them.

The limit of cost as functionality approaches Fmax = $5,000.

Then for each piece of gear, we would have to have cost per mile or day of use.

Surprisingly, the triple entry accounting method solves these equations.

It may be cheaper to buy the best gear early rather than have a progression through cheaper gear that won't last or a person won't be satisfied with.

Making a financial plan before it actually happens would encourage a person to set aside money for replacement of gear when it is needed.

I don't think backpackers are the type of people to do this.

Actually, I do agree with you. (I think I forgot the smiley faces in my previous post to indicate that I wasn't serious.)

Planning is the key to saving money on gear, and buying the best you can afford (then gulping hard and buying one step better, according to Colin Fletcher) means that you might minimize cost over the long run. If you're on a tight budget, then that goes double - you'll want the gear to last a long time, so you want to buy the right thing at the start. Unfortunately, there are a couple of practical problems we encounter.

Unless you're able to spare no expense from the start, you're faced with the problem of needing a full set of gear and having limited funds available. I'll admit to being a huge gear junky (it's become a second hobby for me), but it wasn't always that way. When I began 30 years ago, it was because my son's Scout troop needed additional adults for their trips. I still had a mortgage, wasn't as well established in my career as I am now, had the normal expenses of raising two kids (and saving for their college costs) - and needed to outfit not only myself, but also my son. So, we needed everything and had very little to spend. So, we bought a lot of stuff we knew was, at best, second rate. (Sterno stoves with coffee can cooksets, poly tarps, and $30 American Camper e-frame packs, just to name a few.) But, for about $200, we were able to outfift ourselves. We carried about 15 pounds of gear each, because doing without held the weight down. Within a couple of years, we began replacing gear with better stuff: a Eureka tent, Camp Trails packs, and Peak One sleeping bags. This is when we began evaluating quality.

Another problem in trying to buy good gear once, at the start, is lack of experience. Someone who wants to try backpacking needs gear, but is totally at the mercy of the store clerk in trying to gauge quality. It usually works OK at the local shop, and produces mixed results at larger stores like REI (depends on whether they've got the bike guy working in the camping department that day) - and God help you if you're at the mercy of the ninetten-year-old at Dick's. To get past this, you can rent gear if it's available in your area (not always the case in Ohio) or, if you're lucky, borrow from a friend.

But even if you're lucky enough that you buy good gear the first (or, more likely, second) time around, there's always a good chance you'll succumb to the "Oooh, shiny..." trap. That's what happened to me. I bought a set of really good gear about 15 years ago. And about 12 years ago, and 10 years ago, and 4 sets since then. Like I said, trying different sets of gear, especially as "ultralight" caught on among the mainstream manufacturers, became a hobby unto itself for me. But that, I think, isn't really related to what you're getting at with this thread. (And, luckily, I've been able to avoid having all that gear gathering dust in the basement.)

I'm not sure everyone will take it to the point of applying your formal analytical approach to the problem of equipping themselves. However, I think that (absent gear-junky tendencies), you can save a lot of money (and a lot of discomfort on the trail) by developing a plan that includes an annual gear budget and prioritizes purchases of that second set of gear (I'll put everything toward a really good down sleeping bag this year. Then, next year, I'll get the Jetboil stove and a self-inflating pad. Then..." If you're lucky enough to have a gear-junky friend, you can save a bunch by buying their allegedly-used stuff; if you're lucky enough to live near a good local backpacking shop, you may even be able to minimize that first-cheap-set-of-gear outlay by getting good advice on what gear will work well for a long time.

This is a good thread - maybe you (or someone) could develop it into an article to go with the other "How To" articles on the home page. Those articles tend to focus on the technical aspects of getting started, but there is a definite financial aspect to it, too. (And not everyone wants to start out with a cat-food stove and Folger's cookset.)

Another problem in trying to buy good gear once, at the start, is lack of experience

This is where people fail on advice. Especially retailers. If I were REI, I would sell or rent a complete outfit as a unit. I would make sure not to break up these units if someone wanted to buy a tent that was not in stock.

The problem is the sales person has to make a pack out of what is available as most people do not want to wait.

I don't agree to choose the pack last. (Notice I said choose and not buy.) The average pack weight for a 4 day trip including food and water is .6345 times the pack size in liters. (Roland's Law: If making up a number make it very precise.) The average number of nights it's easy to pack for without resupply is a base of one night for 33 liters plus 2.23 liters per night minus 1/2 liter per clothing size below extra large.

(In case someone new to the thread misses the tongue in cheek accuracy, these are approximations based on my experience.)

Choosing a pack first will force good decisions with the rest of the gear. You won't end up with tent poles that won't fit inside or a stove that is 1/8 inch bigger than that handy outside pocket.

Having an off the shelf combination for a new backpacker that works well enough would save a lot of research most aren't willing to do.

If the pack is light enough, adjustments aren't as necessary. I often forget to attach the belt on my pack because it's light enough I don't notice it.

Excellent points. I also don't agree that it's necessary to save pack selection until last. Any competent clerk should be able to help his customer determine what their general approach will be: "I want all the luxuries of home" will lead him toward 70+ liter packs; "I'd like a nice combination of durability, comfort, and not break the bank" will move you toward 50-60 liter packs, and "I've read about lightweight, and I'm aware it's more expensive, but that's how I want to go" will put you into smaller-then-50 liter packs. Pack capacity will then force gear selection accordingly. I've done that myself, the last couple of times. If the customer says, "I want to backpack, and know nothing about it," then the clerk should spend some time educating the customer (and if necessary, guiding them toward a style. It may take a couple of visits before the buying begins, but a good store will work this way.)

I did a couple of calculations using your estimates, and they aren't far off my experience (if I base the pack size on volume used, not volume available.)

Send me your email in a PM; I've jotted down some stuff I give to newbies who want to buy a complete set of gear without doing research, and I'll send it to you. It's an off-the-shelf combination that I found works well, and is my current second set of gear.

That may indeed be true, and I think it probably is, but it ignores the value of getting out there with cheap gear, which is substantial.

When I was young I simply could not afford quality gear, so I bought cheap stuff and improvised on other stuff. I spent way more money on cars and gas to get to NPs and NFs than gear during those first 20 years. Had I waited to go until I saved and acquired quality gear I may have never gone to many of those places, nor spent near as many nights out.

More than cold nights, sleeping on hard ground, or being wet or hot, I remember the places I went and things I saw back then. So what was the real value of the cheap gear I used?

Priceless....

It could be worse.

I could have gotten into boating. Expensive fuel, expensive annual fees for the slip or the launching ramp, expensive annual tags for the boat trailer...

I know some knitters who spend more on craft supplies than I do on food and gas to the trail. Fanatics who get exotic critters that require exotic foods. Fanatics who acquire radio equipment.

Don't even get me started on guns. I was briefly considering a conceal carry...

A time share?

A cruise every year?

My equation is a little more complicated. I put the money I save into retirement.

I own one piece of "high end" gear - my hammock. Pretty much everything else would be considered "cheap" by most here. My gear selection works for me and the climate/terrain in which I spend the vast majority of my time. Sure, I could spend a bunch more money to shave an ounce here or there, but it's not worth it IMO.

Throughout this discussion, we have not defined "good" gear. 40 years ago it was pretty simple because there was not a lot of choice. Now you can get overwhemed by the choices. And list price is meaningless-two people, same item, each paid a different amount. If our goal is light gear then we ought to say that. If our goal is durable gear, then say that. "Good" is too subjective. If our goal is "functional" then say that. And then there is fit. No matter how great the gear is supposed to be, if it does not fit you, then it really is no good.

I bet everyone here has a mix of quality. I started out with expensive high quailty boots, cheap backpack, army surplus clothing, good sleeping bag, and just shared a tent for years before I was able to buy my own. Now I have cheap shoes (they fit better but I have to replace them often), high end sleeping bag (only replaced because old one was stolen), moderate priced tent that I replace every 3-4 years, moderated priced backpack that gets replaced every 3-4 years, high end cook set (never replaced), high end bear cannister, moderate sleeping pad (adeqauate is fine with me), high end down clothing, cheap hiking clothing and fleece, high end socks, hand-me-down trekking poles. I acually use a lot of my husband's rejects (he is a gear-a-holic). My weekend pack of High Sierra is about 22 pounds total, with about 4 pounds of clothing I wear. Light but not ultralight. I am fine with this right now.

A few reasons for NOT buying high end, last-a-lifetime stuff- inevitably better stuff comes along, often the same high end stuff is half the price if you just wait a few years, and unforntunately some stuff does get stollen or lost. And not for me yet, but for many, our own bodies change sizes!

I think this is going to have to be a two semester course.

The first semester will be learning how to build a pack. The final project will be to get a 4 day pack under 27 pounds including food and 2 liters of water with a BTS under .55. The cost of food WILL be included in the cost of the pack. The student will be required to carry 3,000 calories a day and no more than 1.5 pounds of food plus a very small allowance for packaging.

The student will purchase this setup and backpack a minimum of 30 nights in it during the summer.

The second semester will be to whittle down the pack weight using the cost per gram saved.

The student will first eliminate things they do not need and recalculate BTS based on the original cost of these items.

The student will be given a budget of $257. They will go through each item of their gear, research an alternative, and calculate the cost/gram saved.

Then they have a choice. They can purchase the gear or save the $248 for the next year to make a bigger purchase with a lower cost/gram saved.

"IMO"

And that's the crux of it: as long as it works for you, the gear selection is fine.