Had some fun with this yesterday: it's from our blog on backpackthesierra.com
Is there a mathematical solution to the challenge of ultralight backpacking? It seems that an engineer would be able to develop an equation that could be used to fine tune our equipment. It would have to address a number of variables. I am not an engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but I did have some fun working through this problem:
W = the weight of your pack when you leave the trailhead. The goal is to manipulate the other variables to achieve a very low value for W. Lighter is better
P = the price you have to pay for your equipment, in dollars. Please convert from Euros, Rubles, etc. if required.
And somehow our equation needs to reflect that as W is reduced, P usually increases.
In fact, as W approaches zero, P probably arrives close to infinity—or at least beyond the reach of normal people. In other words: Priceless. Ouch.
Instead, let’s set up the equation to reward people who do this lightly and CHEAP.
So with all that in mind:
LET
W = Weight in number of pounds you carry. Note that this will NOT be what you WANT to carry which will always be N-1 (where N = # ounces you are carrying).
C = $800—the rough price we paid for our backpacking outfit. You will have to use your own numbers here to see how you compare.
P = the Price you must pay for the gear (in dollars, pesos, rubles, etc.) per pound
So the final equation reads like this:
P = C/W
Do you want to buy a new tent? What if the new tent weights three pounds?
P= 800/3 = $266.67.
Is that a good deal? Let’s compare that to staying with your old, four pound tent:
P= 800/4 = $200.00
Is paying $66.67 worth it? Maybe. Most of us would agree that paying $20 would be worth it, if we could save a pound on our pack weight. Many of us would pay a lot more for that!
What about a new 1.5 pound tent?
P= 800/1.5 = $533.33
That makes some lightweight gear seem like a screaming deal!
Now let’s look at my own list, bearing in mind that we are NOT ultralighters, and that my wife and I certainly believe in some creature comforts. So we carry about fourteen pounds each, not including water and food.
P = 775/14 = $57.26 cost per item per pound.
So I am presenting that as the BTS (Backpack the Sierra) constant. Let’s round it off to a nice round $60 per pound.
So how does your pack stack up? The real goal here isn’t to get the pack weight to zero—it’s to see how cost effective your kit is. Do you get by with lower cost equipment, but stuff that might weigh a little more? Or do you go for the ultimate lightweight gear, even if it costs you more?
And how do those answers fit into the equation? I would assume that other regions, which require more or less equipment, have somewhat different answers. Our own answers for winter camping would be like this:
P = 1000/18 = 55.55. That’s pretty dang close to the BTS constant!
If you have to analyze whether to buy the newer, lighter stuff, you're doing it wrong. This is pure, emotional consumerist obsession! (Hi, I'm Glenn, and I'm a gearaholic...)
Nice piece of analysis, though. I'd probably come closer to $70 or $80 a pound (no way will I calculate it - too much chance my wife might find the piece of paper!)
However, how do you put in another variable: the change in style that is the big weight saver? How do you quantify using freezer-bag cooking instead of real cooking for example? When you switched from real cooking to freezer bag cooking, you probably didn't buy that new titanium pot right away - you eased into it by leaving one of the pots from your old two-pot set behind, and maybe eliminated a cup and bowl, too.
When I started down this road, I was at roughly 35 pounds of gear for a weekend (before food and water.) My first round of lightening up cost me nothing (reducing to a single pot, no cup, bowl, or fork; leave out the chair kit, no spare clothes, letting the rain jacket double as a windbreaker, paring down the first aid and repair kits, leaving out the groundcloth, etc.). It saved me 13 pounds. Then came the gear switches, saving another 8. So, how do I fit the 13 pounds of omission into the analysis?
With some stuff, lighter is cheaper (e.g., backpacks, footwear); with some stuff, lighter is more expensive (sleeping bags, insulated garments, certain shelters, cookware); and of course the lightest of all is stuff left at home.
My "problem" is I'm restless about finding gear that's incrementally better than what I'm using, and I'm probably 50:50 with each intended "upgrade" as to whether this is actually the case. And of course, trip conditions often wreck havoc on the most lovingly crafted kit ("Nobody predcted this @*#$&%^% snow!).
If I actually knew the size of my BP gear "investment" I'd probably weep. Luckily, I'm sufficiently disorganized to render the possibility 100% moot.
For one, you need the unit cost not total cost. Shoes are a good example. Shoe X at $50 last only 500 miles where as shoe Y last 1000 miles but costs $100. (see - you have to consider depreciation that reflects the expected life of the investment) They have the same unit cost per mile. On the other hand a Nalgene bottle costs $15 and lasts forever; my used vinagar bottle only lasts 100 miles, but what the heck, it is free! Now how about some fragile super-light weight pants. Twice as expensive as cheap pants, and cost even MORE when you factor in the days of use you can get out of them.
Second, you need to look at the big picture (your closet). Do you always take the same sleeping bag? If you only own one bag, that is the cost; if you own three different bags and switch bags based on season, then your cost is all of the bags. Come on gear-a-holics-- what is the cost of your total backpack closet! I am with RickD - I really do not want to know.
Third, whenever you do economic analysis you also have to consider the "time value" of money. We may be in a low inflationary phase now but it is not likely to last forever. What you really need is an anualized replacement cost over a given time period. What that piece of equipment really costs is what you have to put aside in a piggy bank to replace that item in the future. Here it gets complicated too. Are prices going to go down? Up? Am I a gear-a-holic so nothing will stay in my pack more than 2 years before I replace it?
Anyway - I doubt ANY of us are logical in buying gear. Lets just admit it - we love the latest and greatest stuff! Most purchase is based on emotion and we are really good at justifying our purchase. Each of us has a "price-point" where we cannot justify the expense based on our financial condition (or disapproval by other family members -- you did what!!! spent $700 for a stupid sleeping bag and you just said we cannot remodel the kitchen!)
Depreciation, Annuitization, and Time Value of Money - NOW we're talkin;!!
Actually, your vinegar bottle does cost something - it's just buried in the cost of the total product. And yes, the cost is indivisible, unless someone opens a store where you can get a lower price by bringing your bottle in for a refill. Having split that hair, let's now determine how many angels fit on the head of a pin....
You're exactly right, though - there is no logic whatsoever in our gear lust, and any attempt to justify it on other than "Oooh, shiny..." is just an intellectual exercise. I count myself lucky, the granddaughters are too far away to spend all my "vice" money on, and since I don't smoke, drink, gamble, or own a boat, I tell myself I'm allowed one vice. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. (By the way, Karol's taken up quilting, which I'm discovering has almost as much gear as backpacking, and since she has a similarly obsessed friend - aka, enabler - may put a significant dent in my gear budget.)
I learned the economic stuff in Engineering school. I am a water resource engineering planner and we have to jump through all those hoops too.
Glen- my vinager bottle IS free because I have to buy the vinegar anyway. If it did not become my backpack bottle, it would go into the recycle garbage. You know, you can justify all your backpack food that way too- got to eat anyway. Hey- and a sleeping bag is a lot cheaper than a bed and you have to sleep anyway. If we go on we may be able to even say that backpacking SAVES money. Then we can get into opportunity cost!
Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
If we weren't backpacking, we would be doing something else, like driving motor homes, playing golf,sailing yachts, or racing Ferraris. I suspect we would be spending a good deal more money following those pursuits.
Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
Quote:
If we go on we may be able to even say that backpacking SAVES money. Then we can get into opportunity cost!
Wow... I never thought of justifying my gear this way. You all are way beyond me. But seeing it explained so eloquently has really got the gears turning...
I'll start small, like a titanium pot, and if that works I'll keep going til my wife understands why a new Range Rover will save us money if I use it for getting me to the trailhead.
I'll have to polish those skills though because she's a tough nut to crack, that's why I'm still driving a 1992 Suzuki Samurai
Start with something like, "Hon, if I tip over rounding a corner and become paralyzed, can you take care of me and the house and the pets and...?"
Originally Posted By billstephenson
Quote:
If we go on we may be able to even say that backpacking SAVES money. Then we can get into opportunity cost!
Wow... I never thought of justifying my gear this way. You all are way beyond me. But seeing it explained so eloquently has really got the gears turning...
I'll start small, like a titanium pot, and if that works I'll keep going til my wife understands why a new Range Rover will save us money if I use it for getting me to the trailhead.
I'll have to polish those skills though because she's a tough nut to crack, that's why I'm still driving a 1992 Suzuki Samurai
Here is how we saved lots of money by backpacking. My backpacking the last 3 years = $2000; the opportunity cost is what I would get if I had invested it. Alas, my investments have crashed, half value. Thus, spending the money on backpacking actually saved me $1000 that I would lost if I had invested it!
Here is how we saved lots of money by backpacking. My backpacking the last 3 years = $2000; the opportunity cost is what I would get if I had invested it. Alas, my investments have crashed, half value. Thus, spending the money on backpacking actually saved me $1000 that I would lost if I had invested it!
That reminds me of people who worked for Lucent and bought beer instead of investing in the stock through their 401k. They ended up with more money from the deposit on the empties than the stock was worth.
LOL--glad to see this topic brought out the very best in you folks!
Yes--we often justify our backpacking gear expenses by saying: look, other people go to expensive hotels and eat in fine restaurants for vacation. We spend maybe $10 on a wilderness permit, and eat a $7 freeze dried dinner? Of COURSE we can buy those new sleeping bags--we would spend that much in a night or two at a good hotel...
And so the collection of equipment grows...
But I also thought that this was interesting from a more basic standpoint. If you wanted to get into backpacking cheaply, you could certainly start with an old Kelty external frame from a thrift shop at $15, and add a synthetic 40 degree bag from Big 5 for under $50. And you would be well on your way to a kit that would get you started for not much money at all.
Registered: 02/26/07
Posts: 1149
Loc: Washington State, King County
Those that haven't already heard of this might be interested in the $300 challenge. I.e., put together a complete and fairly lightweight set of backpacking gear for $300. The values might be a bit out of date now, but the overall approach and details are worth looking at for anyone trying to keep costs within reason.
You're absolutely right, of course - every once in a while, just for fun, when I'm in some town in southeast Ohio (where our good hiking is), where WalMart is the only department store for 50 miles, I'll walk through the sporting goods, grocery, and clothing sections and see if I can put together a complete weekend kit there. I usually find I can, and that it wouldn't cost more than $500 (mayber closer to $400) - but it wouldn't be particularly light. Based on the weights listed on the package (or guessed at, since not all are listed), I'd guesstimate that such a kit would be in the 28 - 32 pound range.
You can't have a REAL engineering equations without squaring something. Also, make sure all dollar measurements are absolute dollars, and all weight measurements are absolute pounds.
_________________________
I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3293
Loc: Portland, OR
A somewhat less monetized way of looking at opportunity cost is to say that money, whether it is saved, spent, invested or squandered, will only tend to finance such opportunities as we value.
When I have a broken leg, I obviously want the opportunity to have it set by a doctor. But no matter how much money i have, I will never take the opportunity to build a mansion in a swamp.
What really matters to me in terms of "opportunity costs" are lost opportunities to accomplish what I value most. Once my basic needs for food and shelter and general health are met, I value backpacking very highly. More than almost any other opportunties, regadless of the amount of money they would cost.
So long as I have the money to meet my basic needs, year in and year out, then anything beyond that which I spend on backpacking consists of gleefully, joyfully, enjoying the opportunity to hike, and my money is achieving its highest potential, regardless of whether I could have bought stocks and earned myself lots more money to spend. What else could I spend it on that's half as enjoyable as hiking?
When I have a broken leg, I obviously want the opportunity to have it set by a doctor. But no matter how much money i have, I will never take the opportunity to build a mansion in a swamp.
Don't rule it out! Although it will probably take four tries.
Quote:
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
I think triple entry accrual accounting needs to be used to track the finances. Rather than being surprised about the results, one should plan the financial statement to achieve the results we want.
Think of the initial investment as an Initial Public Offering. All that goes into gear which all starts to depreciate over 5 years. Some gear we use the whole 5 years. Like a sleeping bag. Some we use less like those boots in the back of WD's closet.
Gear that doesn't get used for whatever reason incurs a capital investment by the business to replace it. There would have to be income to the business (meaning the backpacker would buy a secondary offerig) which would then be spent on more gear.
Simple measuring the cost per pound is not enough without some measure of when it's likely to be replaced. My cookset lasted maybe 15 nights before I stopped using it. Because it was heavy and inexpensive, the cost per pound is low, But the cost per use is high.
If this all seems complicated, all you would have to do is hire a backpacking financial analyst. And probably an accountant to do your taxes.
"...one should plan the financial statement to achieve the results we want."
Or, to use the technical accounting answer to the question of how much 2 + 2 is: "How much do you want it to be?"
I like the idea of needing a financial analyst AND a tax accountant for backpacking. We could call it the Accountants' Full Employment Act. (Oh, wait, that's what we call it every time they pass a tax simplification act.)
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!