Weight cut off??(another stupid newbie ?)

I'm sure this has been covered before but what weight constitutes ul, sul, or standard backpacking. Base weight obviously, trip extent and food varies accordingly. Thanks!

Here's the approximate numbers I think of. I think they're fairly similar to what you'll here elsewhere:

Heavy, unpleasant backpacking - 18+ lbs
Lightweight backpacking - 10-18 lbs
Ultralight - 5-10 lbs
SUL - 3-5 lbs
XUL - <3 lbs (not recommended in any way)

These are all just arbitrary terms. I used to think it would make a big difference if I "went" SUL, cutting out another pound of weight. Then I realized that if I was carrying enough food and water, the extra pound would end up being only a 5% weight decrease for a lot of sacrifices.

I'm assuming Nick means "base weight" in his numbers: that is, the weight of the non-consumable items, including the pack. Food, water, and fuel would be on top of these numbers in determining total pack weight at the trailhead. Also, you can't cheat by sticking stuff in your pockets to reduce your base weight.

I agree that getting that very last pound out of your pack is less meaningful than the first 19. I'm down to around 13 or 14 pounds for a base weight now; a typical weekend load would be about 18 total. Getting it down to 17 would not be that critical, especially if the pound saved was accomplished by switching to a frameless pack. For me, a frameless pack doesn't work as well as a framed pack, and that 18 pound load in a 3-pound internal frame pack is more comfortable than the same load in a 2-pound frameless pack. (Before the argument begins, let me say that I am in no way implying frameless packs don't work or are inferior to internal frame packs. They do work, very well, for many people. I've used them, and they do work - but my own preference is for a light internal frame. Doesn't mean I think your preference should be the same.)

Your own weight should also be considered. Carrying a 13 pound pack when you're 40 pounds overweight is not exactly "ultralight." I always figure the excess body weight needs to be included as pack weight. (I'm probably 10 pounds heavier than I should be, and used to be about 40 pounds overweight. Carrying a 20-pound pack at that weight left me just as exhausted at the end of the day as I used to be when I was 10 pounds overweight carrying a 40-pound pack, many years ago. My current efforts to lighten the load are more centered on getting those last 10 pounds off me than they are on getting one more pound out of my pack. By spring, if I'm lucky and disciplined...)

18+ pounds base weight is NOT unpleasant! It is the total weight on your back that makes for "unpleasant". For a weekend trip, 20 pounds base weight + 3 pounds food and fuel is still a very managable pack.

Each person's comfort break point is different. My personal break over total pack weight is 35 pounds - at this point the pack actually makes me choose to do less miles. I can do 40-45 pounds, but have to change to a different pack that has a sturdier suspension system rated for that weight and cannot do 12-hour days. 30 pounds is more comfortable, for sure. Over the years, I have settled on a base weight of 20 pounds (including bear cannister which is required where I backpack).

A more standard measure is percentage of "lean" body weight. In other words, your ideal body weight. About 1/4 your body weight is commonly thought of as a good pack weight.

There is trail comfort and camp comfort. You have to find a good balance between the two. I can get by with a small sleeping pad (8 oz x-small thermarest) but am the coldest sleeper in the world so my sleeping bag is a 5-degree bag, which for me, is good only to the 20's. If I took a lighter bag, my pack would weigh less but I would not sleep well. Others really need a hefty sleeping pad (many over a pound) but get by with a much lighter bag.

And then there is why are you out there? Fishermen will throw on many pounds of fishing gear. Climbers will throw on heavy climbing gear that often out-weighs their base weight.

The longer the trip the more food and fuel you carry, so the more careful you have to be to really minimize base weight. Food weight should run between 1-2 pounds per day. Really hard to get enough even with FD food for under 1 pound per day. Over 2 pounds per day and you probably are carrying the wrong kind of food.

I think WD has it right. It's all relative. If you are 6'4" and 250, you can carry a heck of a lot more than me and it would probably feel about the same. Other than that, putting labels on gear other than what it actually weighs is just marketing.

Glenn if you have to add your excess body weight, do I have to subtract my deficit body weight?

My base weight with pack, 15 degree bag, shelter, sleep pad is about 10.14 pounds, depending which shelter I take. It never higher than 10.14 with those items. To me, that is ultralight and I plan to never go above that weight with those major items. For three days, I like to keep it under 30 pounds. I have a trip coming up soon and Hurricane Sandy paved the way for old man winter to have a tail gate party in the Smokies by dumping 20 inches of snow. The extra set of clothes, extra calories of food, and miscellaneous will probably weight roughly 28ish pounds... I did an overnighter in September and August and my total weight with food and water was between 16-17 pounds. I believe that is ultralight. To others that is heavy or superlight.

Sure, why not? Seeing you post a negative base weight is sure to light up the thread.

Or, if you'd like, we can meet somewhere and you can carry enough of my gear to get us both to zero!

When I made my first big push to reduce my pack weight, I dropped my base from 32 lbs to 22 lbs. That right there felt like I had made the leap into lightweight backpacking! I have since gradually reduced my standard summer base weight to about 17 lbs. I am very happy with this arrangement, which is all that really matters.

As for where the cutoff weight for ultralight or super-ultralight should be set, you can get a different opinion on this every day of the week depending on who you ask. There is no official organization issuing guidelines for what each label means.

My own sense is that as you approach 12 lbs or under, you can claim to be ultralight. When it comes to super-ultralight, I have no clue, mainly because I have so little interest.

So my current base weight isn't too shabby, pack, bag, pad, cooking gear, tent, small stuff( headlamp,personal care, ect...) come in just under 12 lbs.

Even definition of base weight varies. My definition of base weight is key big items:pack, shelter, sleep bag and pad. I suppose my reason behind it is due to fact those are generally biggest items in term of volume and/or weight. I divide the rest into two categories: need and want. Lol. Ah, well.

I think most people would say that base weight is the weight of your pack without food, water, and fuel.

If you just include the major items (pack, sleeping bag and pad, and shelter) then you are really talking about "the big three."

And while it is true that the biggest single improvements in your base weight are probably from your big three, those smaller items really add up.

For example, our big three are 7.6 pounds, 8.5 if you count my NeoAir mattress as well. My wife's pack is a lighter, because I carry the tent and she carries the kitchen. So she weighs in about a pound less than me.

And you can add in another two pounds for me for the BearVault that we take on almost all of our trips. It's required in so many places these days that we just consider it part of the pack.

But we each carry an extra five or six pounds of "smaller items" from clothes and FAK to or Croc camp shoes, my fishing equipment, and her books to read.

If we really wanted to lose pack weight, it would pretty much have to come from those latter items, not the big three...

Weight carried and comfort are influenced by the pack design. Even UL hikers can have an uncomfortable pack if they load it up with more weight (food etc) than the pack is designed to carry. I ran across a UL PCT hiker who was absolutely miserable adding a 12-day ration to his UL pack. Up the trail I ran into another PCT hiker with the recently resupplied 12 days of food but heavier pack designed for the weight and she was having a pleasant hike. Be sure to match your load with the pack. Advertised "comfort to xx pounds" are, in my opinion, highly exaggerated. If it says 40#, probably good to 35, maybe only 30. I actually have three packs and switch between them. Additionally HOW you pack the pack (weight distribution) also makes a differenece, more so as the pack gets heavier.

I do not think you can peg UL to a specific weight. Different geographical areas have different equipment requirements, as do different seasons require different stuff.

For the perspective of what we carried in the 1960's, you youngsters do not even KNOW what heavy is! We have come a long way baby! Thank goodness. And if you really want to see what heavy is, try back country alpine technical climbing.

Just a question- do any of you count the clothing you wear and trekking poles as base weight?

Hi Daisy

I don't count the clothing I wear in the base weight...but I do wear pretty light stuff. That's possible in the summer in the Sierra.

And you are right about the old days. 1968, a five day trip, and we were carrying about 45 pounds each.

Now my wife and I could do that same trip with 45 pounds between the two of us!

The only worn clothing I count is if it has a chance of being in my pack. My hiking poles are never in my pack, so they don't count either (for me).

Confess that while I'm pretty good at knowing what my various bits of gear weigh, I never know my actual trail weight because I don't finish packing everything until I'm at the trailhead parking lot. I also never pack the same gear setup twice.

Now I'm embarrassed.

Cheers,

I agree with W_D that the manufacturers' "maximum weight" is generally overstated. On the other hand, my pack (a discontinued model from Six Moon Designs, similar to but smaller than their Starlite) weighs 29 oz. and I have carried up to 37 lbs. in it (the max listed on the website is 35). It's not a frameless pack unless you take out the "optional" (mandatary, IMHO) stays. My shoulders, back and hips were fine, but my knees and feet were screaming! After that trip (which was to sprinkle a relative's ashes, which accounted for 11 lbs. of the weight) I changed the place I want mine disposed of to 3 miles from the trailhead!

The current maximum total weight that I can carry is about 25 lbs, preferably nearer 20. My current base weight is 12 lbs, including fishing gear and my camera. This includes everything I need for my comfort and safety on 3-season trips (including high altitude in the Rockies). Of course, what I'm comfortable with may be too spartan for some and too luxurious for others. Also note that the amount of base weight is going to differ depending on environmental conditions--it's definitely not a case of one list fits all!

I well remember starting out on a 9-day trip in the North Cascades with a 50-lb. pack, back in 1987. I still don't know how I managed it! The next spring I managed to tear nearly all the ligaments in one knee while X-C skiing, which meant I had to give up backpacking (except for a few very short overnighters) until I found this site. That's why I'm so grateful to this site and particularly the articles on the home page. They changed my life!

No, I don't count the basic outfit and trekking poles as part of base weight, since I'd wear and take them regardless of whether it was a day hike or backpack trip. The basic outfit is shoes, socks, boxer briefs, shorts, T-shirt, and hat. Anything beyond that - long johns, rain gear, gloves, etc. - gets counted as pack weight.

Back in 2007, "Bearpaw" wrote a really amusing article on pack weights. It appears to no longer be on this site, but I asked him if he'd be willing to post it on our Portland (OR) area hiking forum, and he did. Here's the article. Enjoy!

Thanks for linking to this, Mouse. I miss having Bearpaw here; I always enjoyed his posts. Any idea what he's up to these days? (I'm assuming the "new wife" in the post is Sleeps with Skunks?) Last I knew, he was teaching and working at the REI in Nashville, Tennessee.

Anyhow, if you hear from him anytime soon, tell him I said "Hi."

I haven't heard from Bearpaw since then. A few months ago, I saw a post from him on a forum I rarely visit (not a very active forum), "Sgt. Rock's Hiking HQ."

Edit, later: Found his post! Savage Gulf

For the OP and others, the Sgt. Rock site has excellent articles for beginners! I especially like this one: Dirtbagging and Deal Shopping

My base weight is 15 lbs, and all in I can run up to 25 with water, food and fuel. (and wine, and fishing gear, and the little birthday cake for my buddy...)

I have never failed to have the lightest pack in the group I hike in, and am consistently labeled "ultralight" by those who apparently have a base weight of 28 judging from the total weights they carry. It is indeed completely arbitrary and subjective...

Heavy and unpleasant for me starts with a base weight of 30. A good backpack does a lot of the work.

Conditions vary to much to generalize. Aim to go as light as you can, aim to replace worn out gear with lighter weight versions, do not compromise safety, scrutinize each item regarding its worth (benfit) vs weight (cost), experiment a little - try UL in a safe situation where you can bail out if needed. Depending on what you need, choose the lightest pack that still supports the weight. Go hike.

Sometimes I am "light", occassionally but rarely "UL", often on the lower weight of "traditional". My base weight changes for each different environment and my backpacking goals for each specific trip vary. Yes, a bottle of wine sometimes is a backpacking goal! I would not obsess over base weight or arbitrary weight classifications.

I once asked a knowledgable clerk at REI why they do not carry lighter weight gear, and they said it has to do with their 100% guarentee policy. People buy the light weight stuff, do not care for it properly, and return it. You really cannot just go to any outdoor store and buy a UL setup. It takes some research and finding specialty stores.

Going XUL can be very pricy. You have to decide if it is worth it or even needed for the type of backpacking you do. XUL is kind of specialized - needed for those who do LONG trips - 25-30 miles per day, day after day. As much as I would like a cuben fiber tent or tarp, it is not going to happen on my budget. UL gear is a bit more fragile. I do a lot of bushwacking and off-trail precluding for example, UL hiking pants. You have to consider replacement cost- buying new pants for each trip is not practical or affordable for me.

But everyone, within any budget, can gradually lighten their load and be open minded about new equipment and mindsets. It is an admirable goal.

I don't fret over the weight of clothing, but I'm acutely aware of how heavy my boots and layers of fleece and rain gear are at the end of the day.

Here's a 90+ lb pack from a couple weeks ago (not including rifle)... a 45 lb pack feels like nothing after hauling out meat and antlers

Nice where did you get it( the elk)? I have a dedicated meat pack but it is like 6 lbs empty!

My base weight is 8 1/2 pounds, and that includes all my pocket stuff. I have actually carried 27 comfortably in my frameless one pound pack, but my more usual load is around 15 for a long weekend. Like Lori, mine has drawn a few laughs ("but that's a day pack", "your pack full weighs less than my food bag"), but for me, it's how I continue to hike. I mentioned that weight here once and was surprised that it was considered ultralight (I had thought that term meant five pounds or less).

Becoming UL is actually meaningless to me. Being able to continue hiking solid distances means a whole lot. I got there as many here have, a little at a time, replacing equipment as needed, reaching for the lightest version of each item.

I had a small advantage: I started hiking and camping when I had no money, and therefore very little gear, and therefor don't miss a lot of stuff. Worked briefly as a cowboy as a kid. When we were riding fence, our "camping gear" consisted of a poncho, the heavy wool saddle blanket, a fabric covered canteen, and a coffee can with a wire handle added. Oh, and a spoon and the boot knife we always carried.

I don't carry a whole lot more today, but each item is a lot lighter.


best, jcp

RC, I'm in SW Montana... I do a solo backpack-in, highcountry elk hunt every fall.

Here's the "hero shot"... he's 8.5+ years old and teeth ground down to the gums. Not the best eating, but hey, small price to pay for good antlers

Very nice, still good eatin! Should last a few months!

For another view on these very arbitrary (and mostly meaningless, IMHO) weight classifications, try this article by Andrew Skurka Is the Lightweight Backpacking Label Dead, Along With its UL, SUL, XUL Derivatives? A few quotes:



BTW, Brad, congrats on the elk! I suspect that stews, pot roasts and other long, slow, moist cooking with plenty of seasoning would be the best use for this old guy. (My mouth is watering!) Certainly a better fate for him than slowly starving to death over the winter, considering his age and the condition of his teeth.

You're exactly right on the best cooking for such an old bull... his loins have been excellent (and tender) however.

I also agree, he didn't have a lot of time left given his teeth.

I think your pack stays are a bit oversized...