How light is to light

Ok I am new here.
I would like to start out by saying I have started out my light weight backpacking journey about a year ago. I have read all the sites and forums. I have gone from 45 lbs to 20lb for a 3 season weekend pack with food.
It has cost a bunch but at this point in life it is easier to afford.
some gear is:
a big Agnes fly creek 2 2 lbs
Montbell down bags 1.2 lb
down jacket 5 oz
2.3 lb pack. osprey exos 48
light weight filters, light knife,
Big agnes chair ( used with Air mattress) 6 oz
Biggest thing I have learned is to look at every item and say realistically do I need to take this.
gone are the following
- first aid kit. Is now 2-3 oz from 1.2 lbs. I can not do -surgery in the field now but I doubt I would ever need to.
-camp shoes - gone
-high end rain gear - replaced with frog toggs ultra lite 10 oz
-Dana Designs pack gone 6lbs
-unnecessary cups, utensils, cookware not needed for meals
-msr water filter
-tent lantern
-extra knife
- more medicines than I could realistically take during the timeframe of my trip
-water bladders, replaced with Vitamin water bottles

So I would like to hear feed back on my following feelings.
It seems that the pursuit of light weight packing gets to a point of How light can I go with total disregard for any sort of comfort in the backcountry. I am totally onboard with carrying a light pack. But do I really want to sleep under just a tarp? when I can have a full shelter for less than 2 lbs.
or use an alcohol stove and carry 10 ozs of fuel when I can use a jetboil or other canister for the same weight or a few for 3 oz more. By time some of these people pack the stove fuel windscreens and other apparatus the need to fire up an alcohol stove is it worth it??. I can have hot water for drink or food in 4 minutes from the time I grab my jetboil from my pack and I do not pay a huge weight penalty.
Same foes with a sawyer fuel filter. My mini weight 1.9 oz.
Versus maybe .8 oz of chemical treatment and bottles I would carry. Plus My water is filtered not just purified, ( no particles or floaters).
I see some gear lists and YouTube videos and wonder is it worth the 1-2 lbs of weight savings to give up so much comfort.
At 20 lbs with food for three days I am very comfortable, eat well, stay warm and sleep well.
SO what is the attraction of going to the extreme other than I can say My pack is 12 lbs and yours is 13?

Most of us here are aiming for "lightweight", not really UL, and you pretty much hit on the reasons why. It's a balance between carrying the kitchen sink and practically nothing that is pretty much always based on personal preferences.

It doesn't matter a bit what others bring as long as they don't insist I carry it

Bill,

The last time I said that, I ended up carrying that person's pack for a whole day... and not only was said pack incredibly heavy, it tried to drown me (my pack I could easily wiggle out of in the water, but the other person's pack I could not and I lost my footing and it pushed me forward - talk about scary!)

Like Bill, I don't have any particular weight goal, I have what I call a "function" goal. By that I mean that I take along with me what I feel that I need and will use and nothing more (except some safety related stuff). I'm getting along in years so some of my "needs" would be classed as luxuries by those who are younger. At any rate, my determination of what I need is based on experience and on the current weather report, not on some arbitrary "ideal" weight proposed by others.

After I have decided what I need, then the issue of weight becomes a factor with the constraints of function being a deciding factor. As an example, I won't take a light sleeping bag to save weight and risk being cold at night, a good night's sleep is important to me. Or, I take a canister stove rather than an alcohol stove because I don't like fiddling around with alcohol and I like being able to turn the thing off. And, I don't take a chair along because it seems I can always find a tree or rock to lean against and I don't have to carry them, they are already there.

So, I guess I'm saying that you are on the right track with your gear: take what you need and ignore the critics.

The origins of ultralight are in thru-hiking the long trails such as the AT or PCT. When you cannot reach your goal without hiking roughly 25 miles a day, every day, for months on end, then lowering your pack weight to an absolute minimum becomes critical to your success. Ounces really do count under such extreme circumstances.

Very few backpackers ever set such extreme goals, so a mania for saving a few ounces is far less appropriate for the vast majority of us. For someone like me who may sometimes hike 15 miles a day, but 8 to 10 is far more common, saving weight is about not working so hard, saving wear on my body, and enjoying my time on the trail.

I agree entirely with Pika that it's all about striking the balance that best meets my goals for each trip. Since I've been doing this for over 40 years now, that balance is based on some very exact ideas of what works for me. It's never just about hitting a certain pack weight. The equation also includes the location, the season, the mileage, what I want to do there besides hike, the amount of comfort I desire, and several other minor tweaks.

My pendulum has swung back and forth and have found a nice balance with a 10 lb base weight. I carry a moderately heavy pad, 20 oz because I really value a good nights sleep. Also I carry a small packable pillow from goose feet gear. It really is an individual thing, so many try and compare their gear set up with someone else's when really there are too many variables. I want to as light as possible without sacrificing comfort, safety, durability. Others have different priorities, and that's fine as long as it works for you. I remember when everyone's pack weighed 40-50 lbs, and we all got by. There was times when I had to ask myself why am I doing this? Now it's so much more enjoyable being lighter, less tired, less sore, and probably even more comfortable than before. Much of the excess weight was junk I didn't need.

Wow some reality based thinking. I like this site already

Just an observation, and may be incorrect, but it seems a lot of the cottage UL industry is driven by older folks with disposable income. Though I have gone light, not UL, my knees ,after much life abuse, can stand a lot of trail miles. I'm very grateful for the wonderful products out there. I easily fit enough to be safe and comfortable in a 60 liter pack, and my wife in a 40. (Hmmmm, that sounds like my wife fits in a 40) What may have been driven by the need of ultra-athlete/hikers to achieve huge mileages has benefited those who can't aspire to lofty physical goals due to encroaching age. As far as I'm concerned, 20-28 lbs. for me, and 12-18 lbs. for my wife lets us hike with comfort and have a great time.We bring reading material, good food that we enjoy eating, and sometimes a fly rod and pack raft. Without the push for light weight products, the 3-4k elevation gains we do now would be impossible for us. I hope the technology keeps going! Lightweight will never trump fitness, but it sure helps as you get older!

I don't know Bluefish, I've bought quite a bit of cottage gear in the last few years and justify it by the fact I don't do much other travel. Hotel rooms are ridiculously high priced and a few nights easily pays for some nice gear. So I look at as vacation cost but last much longer.

My pack weight is light due to not wanting to take so much stuff. The lbs I save allow me to take more (and better) food. I ascribe to the belief of famed Adirondacker George Washington Sears (aka Nessmuk) as he wrote in early years of the last century, "Go light; the lighter the better, so that you have the simplest material for health, comfort and enjoyment."

You bring a stove?

Just kidding. Where you set your limit is your choice.

My son and I usually carry a total of 42 - 44 pounds for a weekend including food and water. Last time out, we took a second stove (Trangia) and alcohol to test it so there were an extra couple pounds. We also started with more food and ate after about half an hour.

I think lightweight backpacking is a matter of taste. I don't mind carrying more if it's only a few miles. If we are stretching the distance, I take less.

You forgot your toilet paper. Don't forget to take out the cardboard. One square should be enough to clean your fingernails a few times.

It just goes to show you how subjective we are to this hobby. Thankfully, we get a broad range of product selections to meet our own personal comfort zone. Backpacking doesn't have to be a death march. Knowing your own limitation shows maturity. Ego is just a human error at times, just because someone else can go lighter or heavier while achieving the same mileages as you shouldn't affect the way you feel about yourself. Knowing your own personal comfort zone and limitation, and enjoy yourself while posting pictures for rest of us to enjoy is great in mine and few others' book!

All my gear is lighter than what you list I believe. I'm at UL status and can be quite comfortable. I have no mortgage or car payment. I collect stoves, so my credit card bill plus utilities is all I have. I've upgraded to much cuben fiber gear. We'll see how long it lasts or keeps me dry, the latest item a ZPacks Solplex shelter. My pack and shelter are half your weight and will be fine in the rain or with carrying a weeks worth of gear and food, plus some water. (mid 20's or so in weight) For weekend trips, I'll bring a couple stoves at least, since that is what I collect. On my vacations, if possible, I'll have a alcohol stove since it is so light, not fast, but I'm not in a hurry.
Duane

RC, since I don't live in Bishop anymore , the smaller lightweight gear has the advantage of being easier to travel with. Dragging heavy packs through airports suck! It also is good enough to use car camping comfortably, acclimating to altitude, or when I want to fish, fish, fish. In April , thanks to accumulated points and Hotwire, we did a trip to the Grand Canyon and northern New Mexico for under a grand for 9 days from Albany, NY. Our trips to the Sierra cost little more, thanks to never or rarely staying in motels, cheap air fares to Lost Wages, and budget rental cars with unlimited miles. I'm fully on board with trading off expensive vacations for useful, durable gear. Lightweight also means smaller and fits easily in a compact, economy car. Just don't tell Hertz and Avis the trailheads they end up parked on.
Being a trail and trout bum means my means are slim; gear is an investment in a quality life for me.

Hikerduane
what Pack are you using
Also the tent is quit interesting.
have you used in true 3 season weather with temps in the 20-30's at night?

The Chef, I just got the ZPacks Solplex a few months ago, I've only set it up once while car camping to get a feel for how it would set up, have not actually used it. About the same time to set up as my Hexamid from last summer, maybe a tiny bit smaller footprint when staked out.
My pack is the Zpacks Arc Blast, I just picked up a Zero from them, comes in at 7 oz., versus 18? for the Blast. Carries well for me with mid 20 lb. loads. Nothing but money. My semi-retired pack is a Six Moon Designs Starlight which works very well for me.
Duane

For some of us, it's either go as lightweight as possible or quit backpacking, something I'm not about to do as long as I can put one foot in front of the other. There are two of us on this forum who admit to being in our late 70's, and both of us are still active.

My base weight went up 6 oz. this year due to my reently getting a more comfortable--and warmer--sleeping pad. However, my base weight is still only about 12.5 lbs including fishing gear and camera (items omitted from most gear lists, even when photos of the trip are included).

When I went lightweight, I modeled my gear list on the 27-lb., 7 day gear list on the home page of this site (lots of articles there on lightening up). That one has a base weight of about 15.5 lbs. For the most part, my gear is lighter than what is on that list, but I take everything I need to ensure both comfort and safety, and (since I'm often at high altitude) can stay warm down to 15*F if needed. To reach a 15 lb. baseweight I spent only about $300 for lighter gear (primarily tent and pack), plus another $325 for my Western Mountaineering sleeping bag (the bag now costs about $100 more). Basically, all I bought were a 1.8 lb. pack, a 2 lb. tent, the sleeping bag (1.6 lb.) and a canister stove. Everything except the sleeping bag was on sale. The big expenditures were to get rid of the last 2 lbs. I'd say that about half my weight savings were from lighter gear and the other half were for eliminating unnecessary or duplicate items.

The maximum I can carry these days is about 25 lbs. total pack weight. This allows me to go out for 8-9 days without resupply. (I mostly backpack in places where water is plentiful, so I usually carry only 1/2 liter at a time.) It's quite a change from the 50 lb. pack I staggered under durin a 9-day backpack through the North Cascades, before the knee injury that put a halt to that sort of thing.

There is such a thing as overdoing the cutting of weight, or what Andrew Skurka calls "stupid light." The trick is knowing what is necessary and what isn't. Generally only experience will tell you. You can be warm, dry, comfortable, well fed and hydrated with a lot less than many people think. As you gain experience and learn skills, you can accomplish this with less.

The stupid light article in OregonMouse's post is excellent.

There may also be stupid heavy. For instance, carrying a couple liters of water when there is plenty of water available. Recently, I saw two waterlogged pillows and a frying pan discarded on the side of a trail.

Perhaps there is stupid far, too. Many newer hikers overestimate how far they can go and trade miles for enjoyment.

Perhaps someone could start a stupid thread.

No doubt about it, their is stupid far.

I can't rush on by the many spectacularly beautiful spots here. I have spent months here exploring 15 miles of trail. Every creek, hollow, and ridge along the way is amazing.

I see the attraction and value in racking up miles to make a goal, but thru hiking, or speed hiking, is not the same as what I consider backcountry backpacking to be about. There's a lot of gear and location overlap between but the primary reasons for carrying the pack are quite different. For me, not stopping to enjoy a super scenic spot is shameful, for the speed hiker not zooming by is.

I think these two approaches often get blurred in concept and portrayals of backpackers and this affects the casual backpacker's expectations and influences their planning, which can certainly lead to "stupid far".

Stupid far can be avoided with experience. I measure miles, count contour lines (OK, nowadays I use the TOPO program) and carefully look for water sources and potential campsites for each trip. I estimate my travel rate including extra time for elevation gain and river crossings. I keep track of my travel times when on the trip. When I return, I edit the spreadsheet and see if I exceeded my plan or went much slower. Over time, I am able to estimate my personal "far" quite accurately. I like to mix it up - some days "stupid easy", some days "stupid far", and some days "just right". And I always build in weather contingency. Most "stupid far" days are a result of making up lost time due to bad weather days.

OM- I do not think I will ever be able to get down to your base weight! One of my big items is the 2 pound bear canister that I am required to use on most of my trips. The other is my sleeping bag - it is a 2#14oz 5-10 degree bag (WM Super Antelope). I am probably the world's coldest sleeper!

I allow myself to one pound of frivolous extras. That could be a light down jacket that is more for comfort than necessity, some fresh food, a book, thicker sleeping pad, more chocolate etc.

Yes, I use an Ursack--here in the PNW, bear canisters are required only in Olympic and North Cascades National Parks (which I generally avoid). Substitute the canister and i'm back up around 15 lbs. base weight. I'm no good at hanging, or I could use an even lighter bear bag.

I've noted that most lightweight or "ultralight" gear lists don't include a canister, either!

With a warm enough pad (the new one is an Exped UL7 Downmat), a vapor barrier suit and all my insulating clothing on me (outside the vapor barrier), I can take my WM Ultralite down to being quite cozy at 15*F, even though I'm also a very cold sleeper. I would be in trouble if it got much colder, though!

Fortunately, There are only a couple of places I hike that require a canister and both are short enough I've been able to avoid them. I'd have to change packs if I needed one. I also have the WM Ultralite, rated, I believe to 35 or 40 F. I've had it down further with all of my clothes on (but no vapor barrier). Don't know what the temperature was, but I had slush in my water bottle (left out accidentally).

Incidentally, I left out of my list the other day that my clothing bag is very light and almost waterproof. I use it as my pillow. When I have no clothes left, I fill it with leaves and duff. Works well. Also, left out one of the miracles of modern backpacking, hand sterilizer (used often, substantially reduces the trail runs)

best, jcp

The WM Ultralite is actually listed as a 20*F bag. Its EN13537 rating is 17*F (men) and 24*F (women) as found on a UK website (and converted from Celcius). WM doesn't list the EN ratings on their site even though they do sell bags in Europe, which seems really odd. At least they didn't the last time I looked, about a year ago.

“…or use an alcohol stove and carry 10 ozs of fuel when I can use a jetboil… By time some of these people pack the stove fuel windscreens and other apparatus the need to fire up an alcohol stove is it worth it??”

Yep. For way less money you can save 9oz (over Jetboil) and go with alcohol. Except for Esbit, alcy stoves will always be your lightest hot meal setup no matter how many days you can carry.
JetBoils are one of your heaviest backpacking stove choices. Even a Whisper Loud will be similar in weight (looking at whole cooking picture and using AverageWeight/day)

For 10oz of alcy fuel, I can go 7 days (hot breakfast and hot supper with spare fuel). The alcy setup will average 12.8oz/day. The 7-day Jetboil setup will average 21.75oz/day

Or for a 3 day setup the alcy kitchen will average 8.8oz/day and the jetboil setup will be 18oz/day.

Yes, you will boil in 4 minutes instead of 8 (or 6), but there are a lot of camp chores that can be accomplished during that time. I.e., light the stove. Do your chores. And no fiddle factor in cold weather is another bonus. Some more bonuses: No partial canisters laying around. Not taking two canisters because one is almost finished. Alcy fuel is good to the last drop. Can use any plastic container for easy packing.

Other thoughts, I would like to go lightweight with a CCF. There are so many advantages. But comfort rules and I use the Neoair short instead.

-Barry
-The mountains were made for Tevas

First of all, I'm not disputing any of the advantages of alcohol stoves; I've used them successfully, and many are quite good. But, something just occurred to me: why have none of the major makers (MSR, Snow Peak, Coleman/Peak 1, etc.) come out with a version of the alcohol stove?

Out here in the West, many jurisdictions now ban alcohol stoves during fire season--especially after several major alcohol-stove-caused fires the past few years. Many jurisdictions insist on stoves with on/off valves and often require stoves that are UL certified. The rules, of course, vary by jurisdiction (a real pain if you're passing through, for example, several national forests) and by the fire danger conditions at a specific time.

Especially in dry conditions, you definitely don't want to go off and do something else while your stove is operating!

I own both alcohol and canister stoves, but invariably when I'm packing up, I grab the canister stove. It's a lot more convenient.

For trips of 7 days or more, the combination of stove + fuel is actually lighter for a canister stove. stove weight vs. time over 14 days.

The almost-empty canisters can be used for car-camping or one-night trips. The canisters can also be recycled once completely empty. It's easy to tell how much fuel is left in a canister by weighing it (most canisters show full and empty weight). All you need to do is to do some testing with cold water on your patio to find out how much fuel is used for your average boil.

This is speculation, but I imagine it has to do with liability, especially in light of everything OM said.

“For trips of 7 days or more, the combination of stove + fuel is actually lighter for a canister stove. stove weight vs. time over 14 days.”

Yea, that link needs updating. It’s been there for at least 10+ years. Maybe add a pepsi stove for comparison. Lets look at 10 days – though this is rare even for any thru hiker (plan for 4 or 5 day refill).



In the above setup it is assumed the canister and alcy will use the same type/weight of pot and boiling the same volume of water so that is out of the calculation. And I use an alcy efficiency 0.75 mass-oz/meal. it’s usually 0.50mass-oz/meal but I just wanted to point out that there’s a lot of playing room with alcy and yet it still comes out with less weight.

Now how about a Jetboil? You’ll see even a greater weight difference (in AvgWeight/day).


“But, something just occurred to me: why have none of the major makers (MSR, Snow Peak, Coleman/Peak 1, etc.) come out with a version of the alcohol stove?”

Good question since they’re used heavy in marine and artic conditions. At least Evernew and Trangia have enjoyed success.

-Barry

If I were to take a medium canister (8 oz fuel) on a 10-day trip not only would I NOT have 3.5 oz of fuel remaining on the last day, I likely would run out of fuel before the end of the trip. (I actually cook food, not just boil water). I can generally squeeze 8-9 days from the medium size canister. In your analysis the reason that the canister average is heavier than the alcohol is that the standard size of fuel canisters do not match the trip requirement. An apples to apples comparison would start by using up all the fuel in the canister, take that many days and compare the equivalent alcohol stove weights.

My guess is they wouldn't have a monopoly on the fuel.

Stoves that run on alcohol have been around for decades. They are called multi-fuel stoves and are used by mountaineers who do international climbing. These are not lightweight stoves.

I suspect the reason that no manufacturer has made a ultra-light commercial alcohol stove is that it cannot meet safety standards. To make it meet safety standards, it would be heavy enough to defeat the purpose of using an alcohol stove.

“An apples to apples comparison would start by using up all the fuel in the canister, take that many days and compare the equivalent alcohol stove weights.”

That’s a good scientific test. But real life apples to apples for me would be “What’s your (1-8) day weight?” of which alcy is lightest. But that’s because alcy has infinite container weights while canister only has two. Even at 20 days where alcy is lightest, that esbit is looking mighty good. There is one day where alcy = canister (9th day with NO breathing room) but beyond that, bang, canister weight goes up. And most of us resupply at 4-5 days anyway.

+1 Gershon’s reason of some manufacturers not making alcy stoves (maintain monopoly).

-Barry
-The mountains were made for Tevas

Maybe this thread should be changed to "How much thinking is too much thinking." My brain is fried.

The place I save the most weight is in not bringing extra food. Yesterday I came back with only a serving of oatmeal. I think on the next trip, I'll pre-calculate the calories I'll burn and only bring that much food. Along the way, I'll plan to lose 1/4 pound a day.

On the other hand, maybe I should lose 10 pounds in the next month and plan to break even on calorie consumption and burn.

next trip, I'll pre-calculate the calories I'll burn and only bring that much food

I assemble and prepackage each meal I intend to eat on a solo backpack. Even though I try to inject some variety from one day top the next, it always ends up very close to 28 oz per day and somewhere between 3000 and 3100 calories. The longer the trip, the less likely I have any food left over at the end, unless I purposely brought a small emergency ration I never intended to eat.

I disagree! How can you say "most of us" re-ration 4-5 days? That is a very short ration period. My typical ration is 9-10 days. One week book-ended by two weekends is very common for those who work and have the one-week vacation. 8-9 days is also what I can stuff in one bear canister (mostly required here in the Sierra). On the other end, a weekend trip 2-3 days is probably the most common. Thing about the weekend trip is that food and fuel weight is minimal, regardless of type of stove, thus less critical.

I say take whatever stove you feel most comfortable cooking on, and one that matches your cooking style. Long distance through hikers are NOT the norm. They have a very specific style where the 4-5 day ration may be the most common. I bet the thru-hiker vs Average Joe backpacker is 1000:1.

I agree with W_D. Most "working stiffs" I know go out for a week plus the two weekends--9 days. That was the normal "long trip" while I was working and belonged to an active hiking/backpacking/mountaineering club. If the trip involved a really long drive, we would leave Friday at 5, drive (taking turns and supported by lots of caffeine) until well into the wee hours Saturday, start backpacking Saturday (definitely sleep-deprived!), backpack 8 days and start the drive home Sunday morning. At least with that schedule there was no problem sleeping Saturday night!

The alternative for most of those who work is going out Friday evening through Sunday, thus taking no time off work and being out for only 2 days (3 days if it's a holiday weekend, althouth those involve more time stuck in traffic).

I repeat what W_D says--only a few backpackers are thru-hikers, and they are definitely not the norm! Very, very few people can afford to take 6 months out of their lives--most of us have demanding careers and dependents to support. And that short a resupply period means a lot more hitchiking and going off trail, which slows down the hike.

The difference with being retired is that I can go out weekdays and avoid the crowds on weekends, especially holiday weekends. If it's a longer trip, I'm out at the farthest distance from the trailhead by the weekend, escaping most of the crowds. 'Tis wonderful!

As I mentioned earlier, in times of extreme fire danger, it doesn't matter what stove/fuel system you prefer--at those times the only legal options are canister, liquid gas/kerosene (unacceptably heavy for most of us), or rehydrating your food in cold water.

OM, even in very popular areas, one can leave the crowds behind about 4-5 miles in. Desolation Wilderness, Yose etc.
Duane

For me this chart is accurate and reflects why I switched to the SuperCat stove.

Fuel is easy to get, fairly inexpensive, the setup is dependable, and nothing I'm aware of is lighter for the way I backpack.

I can pretty much get a new stove and fuel at most any convenience store right here in the Ozarks. That's a hard one to beat.

But like any gear, it depends on your style. Mine has evolved a lot since I became a member here. I had to ease into lighter food.

That's true. I seldom saw a soul when I wondered around Sequoia NF. The NP was crowded in the usual spots but even there a few miles away in any direction was pretty much empty of any other people.

I got a couple free Starlyte stoves, the regular and modified. They work very will with my Caldera Cone set up. Have not tried the carbon felt simmer ring for it yet. Too bad the season for a alcohol stove does not extend into summer with fire restrictions coming earlier.
Duane