Specifications of Base Weight? (Do Trekking Poles Count?...etc.)

[Cesar1239]

I am finishing up getting the last of my lightweight gear for my 2017 NOBO Thru Hike. I haven't found much info about when you're measuring your Base Weight, if that includes your trekking poles and the clothes you're wearing/phone or if it doesn't. Any help would be much appreciated

[left52side]

I am finishing up getting the last of my lightweight gear for my 2017 NOBO Thru Hike. I haven't found much info about when you're measuring your Base Weight, if that includes your trekking poles and the clothes you're wearing/phone or if it doesn't. Any help would be much appreciated

Since your poles will generally be in your hand I do not think they are included in your base pack weight.
Neither are your clothes that are worn during your hike.
Your phone would however be considered in part of your base pack weight as it will stay in your pack the majority of the time.

[nuknees]

Technically I believe according to the fanatical UL'er, base weight would be your pack (empty of course ), shelter, sleeping bag. Total weight of these items to be less than 10 lbs.

[garlic08]

There's "base weight," and there's another spec called "from skin out," or FSO. I think trekking poles would be included in FSO, normally not included in base weight.

Some fanatics think there's a problem when people put things in their pockets to keep from counting in the pack weight, thus FSO. I've never met anyone on a trail who cares that much. I think it's mainly an internet thing.

[colorado_rob]

Tough call on poles, I've never actually known for sure myself... I've settled on poles (one pole in my case) not counting though, meaning they are part of your "clothing" or "skin out" weight (as already said).

It really only matter to each of us individually what we "count" for these various weight specs; if you're self consistent, then you can measure your own "base weight" and track how it might change.

My definition: Base weight is your total pack (with all gear) weight minus the larger consumables (food, water, fuel) and minus the usual clothing worn on a typical day of hiking in good weather. So, all rain gear insulating clothing are included in base, plus of course extra socks, underwear, stuff like that. I also include small "consumable" weights such as sunscreen, bug juice, liquid soap, TP in my base weight (all combined maybe 6-8 ounces), even though technically all consumables should be excluded.

[swisscross]

Base weight is everything in your pack, including your pack, excluding food, water and fuel (maybe toilet paper)....consumables.

Skin out does not mean much to me as my hiking clothes weigh less than my everyday clothes...I have to wear something, maybe not but I sure feel more comfortable wearing something.

I have read that base weight is typically twice your big four (pack, shelter, pad and sleeping bag). I find that to be mostly true or at least close depending on the season/weather. Nuknees said above said that your big three would be your base weight. If that is the case then your actual base would be close to 20 lbs+. Ouch, not so much for most but more than I prefer to carry.

I try not to worry too much about the weight of my pack (my wife would disagree). I do try my best to keep it low, very low but being a big person all my gear weights more. Most manufacturers give weights for their size medium. I am an XL. No way I can compete with the little fellows. I like my large sleeping pad, my larger than most tent, an umbrella and sometimes an extra tarp when my daughter comes along.
I don't own a scale. Well, I have a bathroom scale that I jump on with, then without my pack to get a general idea before heading out.

I agree with Garlic. Really does not matter to most.

[Starchild]

Base weight is a tool, but with limitations. Use the tool properly and it could be helpful for analysis, but recognize it's limitations. For instance many people will chose a lighter base weight water purification system only to carry more weight in water (which is not counted in base weight). Base weight calculations will tend to at times have someone select a lighter base weight at the expense of more weight totally carried.

FSO is a much fairer way of determining what you will actually be carrying, especially as it does include consumables.

For a reality check I like the 'scale on trial' method, when you weigh what you are actually carrying at a moment in time (usually when you are able to weigh your pack on a scale). This not only includes that extra 2 lbs of water you didn't count when you calculated your FSO weight, but also that extra large sandwich and banana you got leaving that last short term resupply stop.

[Odd Man Out]

It's always seemed arbitrary to me. Which clothes do you list as packed or worn as that changes from day to day? On cold days you wear different clothes than warm days. Plus I tend to carry a bunch of stuff in my pockets. Base weight or not?

[Another Kevin]

What's the purpose of comparing base weights? I can see comparing the weights of specific pieces of gear when you're looking to purchase. Obviously, you don't want to buy stuff that's excessively heavy. Otherwise, I don't care what anyone else's pack weighs. I don't have to carry it.

[evyck da fleet]

Slightly off topic but I can weigh anywhere within a 15 lb range throughout the year. Whether my gear weighs x lbs or x plus 2 lbs isn't as important as where I am in that range. I like to know the total weight including my body weight as the latter is usually the easiest way to get more lightweight��. Base weight and the term thru hiker more of an Internet forum thing.

As you can see base weight means different things to different people so if someone does mention their base weight you may get want to ask what that includes if you're looking for a comparison.

[MuddyWaters]

Purpose of base wt is so you know what YOUR pack weighs when add food and waterand consumeables for trip of X days.

Roughly, it tells you what size and style pack can work for you.

[Another Kevin]

Purpose of base wt is so you know what YOUR pack weighs when add food and waterand consumeables for trip of X days.

Roughly, it tells you what size and style pack can work for you.

OK. That doesn't imply knowing a specific number, or arguing about silly things like how much of the clothing you're wearing 'counts'. I know that I need a decent suspension because I carry a little on the heavy side. I have a 3.6-kg (a shade under 8 lb) Big Four in the 'shoulder season.' On the other hand, something like a Gregory Baltoro, or an old-school Kelty, would be overkill. The suspension of the Baltoro carries like a dream, but I surely don't need to be lugging a 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) pack! I know that for some of my trips, I need about a 60 litre capacity to deal with bulky things. It would be nice to have something more like 45 for shorter trips in warm weather, but I can make do with cinching in the compression straps and rolling the top tighter. I need a pack that can fit a 53 cm torso. I have trouble understanding why you'd need to know a number much more precisely than that. What I just said is enough to tell me what pack I need to try from almost anyone's product line.

[Venchka]

Look up the definition of "work" and get back to us.
Here's a clue: everything counts when calculating work.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MuddyWaters]

OK. That doesn't imply knowing a specific number, or arguing about silly things like how much of the clothing you're wearing 'counts'. I know that I need a decent suspension because I carry a little on the heavy side. I have a 3.6-kg (a shade under 8 lb) Big Four in the 'shoulder season.' On the other hand, something like a Gregory Baltoro, or an old-school Kelty, would be overkill. The suspension of the Baltoro carries like a dream, but I surely don't need to be lugging a 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) pack! I know that for some of my trips, I need about a 60 litre capacity to deal with bulky things. It would be nice to have something more like 45 for shorter trips in warm weather, but I can make do with cinching in the compression straps and rolling the top tighter. I need a pack that can fit a 53 cm torso. I have trouble understanding why you'd need to know a number much more precisely than that. What I just said is enough to tell me what pack I need to try from almost anyone's product line.

When talking litewt and UL framed packs, they max out 25-30 lbs generally. Frameless, 15-20. You better know what your gear weighs and room it takes up if you intend to comfortably carry significant food and water.

A lot have tried to carry heavy gear in litewt packs, only to discover this. A lot do so only by saying they only need 3 days food and 1.5 L water. A bit limiting imo.

[Kookork]

We all try to find any kind of excuse not to calculate some of our gear in our base weight. It is like if my Microsoft Excel sheet tell me that I am under 14 pound then I am OK. Reality is different though. No matter what the numbers tells us, we are going to carry everything ( and I mean everything) from point A to point B on our shoulders or hands or pocket and our poor muscle will suffer more or less no matter what. So to answer your question, The poles are part of base weight when you are not using them and not part of it when you are using them.

[Another Kevin]

When talking litewt and UL framed packs, they max out 25-30 lbs generally. Frameless, 15-20. You better know what your gear weighs and room it takes up if you intend to comfortably carry significant food and water.

A lot have tried to carry heavy gear in litewt packs, only to discover this. A lot do so only by saying they only need 3 days food and 1.5 L water. A bit limiting imo.

Well, yeah. So, by the rule of thumb that your base weight is likely twice the weight of your Big Four, I likely have a 7-kg (15-16 lb) baseweight, which gives me about 13-14 kg (say, 30 lb) with a six day food carry and a couple of litres of water. That's too much for an UL pack, which is why I don't carry one. My current 'lightweight' pack (2 lb, 4 oz, just over a kg) carries fine with that load. I know that from experience, and it matches the manufacturer's recommendation that the suspension will support 16 kg (35 lb).

I've yet to load up more than six days' supplies. If you figure that the first day's breakfast and the last day's dinner are in town, that's about a week on trail. I don't go farther than that without resupply.

For my more typical trip, I'm carrying more like two or three days' supplies, so figure 4-5 kg of consumables and 11-12 total pack weight (23-26 lb). That is comfortably under the limit of what my pack can carry. With that load, I'd have to get creative to go to a frameless pack, and I probably couldn't manage, since I carry at least a kg or so of none-of-your-business.

No need to argue over whether my fleece sweater counts as 'worn' or 'carried' - either way, I can tote the pack where I want to go in reasonable comfort. My stuff fits in it. I've never felt compelled to weigh it or tally up what all the small stuff weighs.

This does not mean that I don't upgrade to lighter gear, or think about what I can leave at home. I just don't care that much about what the exact number is. It's within a manageable range for me. I'm sure it's pretty typical of a lot of people I see Out There, since a lot of the stuff I see Out There looks a lot like my stuff. If it were a couple of kg higher or a couple of kg lower, it still wouldn't make a difference in terms of whether the pack suspension could handle it or whether I could get away with a frameless (I couldn't). Taking it to more precision than that seems like meaningless posturing about the size of your .... backpack.

[Uncle Joe]

I think anytime you can be sub-30 with a full load (everything) you're doing pretty good.

[MuddyWaters]

We all try to find any kind of excuse not to calculate some of our gear in our base weight. It is like if my Microsoft Excel sheet tell me that I am under 14 pound then I am OK. Reality is different though. No matter what the numbers tells us, we are going to carry everything ( and I mean everything) from point A to point B on our shoulders or hands or pocket and our poor muscle will suffer more or less no matter what. So to answer your question, The poles are part of base weight when you are not using them and not part of it when you are using them.

Not really.
Baseweight is officially what you have in your pack...at the trailhead.

Typically your pack gets lighter as you drink water and eat food, so adding things like taking off a fleece etc to your pack, really has zero effect on planning,

[Malto]

Wow, I had no idea that base weight was so ambiguous. It is everything in your pack minus food, water and consumables. Yes, base weight changes by season. Its not that complex.

[Kookork]

Not really.
Baseweight is officially what you have in your pack...at the trailhead.

Typically your pack gets lighter as you drink water and eat food, so adding things like taking off a fleece etc to your pack, really has zero effect on planning,

If we are trying to define the base weight then it should be precise and reliable definition. According to the definition you are using then if at trailhead we move some items from the pack to our pocket then we lower our base weight. Right?

I think if the hiking poles are in our pack then they are included in the base weight. when we are using them then they are not because they are touching the ground most of the time and thus we are not carrying them like other items.. Am I missing something here? So the base weight is what we are carrying from point A to point B(excluding food,water and fuel) which are consumable therefor variant.