Dollars for Ounces

[MuddyWaters]

I agree, but how do you know what you don't know? You can recommendations and read reviews but some gear you just have to buy and try and hope you can sell if it's not for you.

Well the bend of the question was about reducing weight and the cost to do that.

I think a lot of newbies are shocked at the cost of light weight gear and convince themselves that it's okay to get things that are a little bit heavier and more durable but cheaper. (It certainly is!)

Then, they find out that their pack weighs more than they like and they really like to get that weight down. Because they see others doing it and well who wants to be left out?

In that regard it's not as much about finding gear that will work for you as it is settling or compromising on heavier cheaper gear in the first place

[nsherry61]

. . . it's not as much about finding gear that will work for you as it is settling or compromising on heavier cheaper gear in the first place

Or compromising with light and cheap gear that doesn't perform adequately and/or falls apart so it has to be replaced and thus doesn't save money or meet your needs in the first place.

Personally, I'm a big fan of educating one's self so that much of the gear doesn't have to be used/purchased at all and/or what gear is purchases is simpler gear with fewer features and thus less money and lighter all at the same time.

[DownEaster]

Personally, I'm a big fan of educating one's self so that much of the gear doesn't have to be used/purchased at all and/or what gear is purchases is simpler gear with fewer features and thus less money and lighter all at the same time.

And that approach will work for some hikers, but be completely unsuitable for others. Big example: going stoveless.

[Cheyou]

And that approach will work for some hikers, but be completely unsuitable for others. Big example: going stoveless.

Going stoveless cost nothing ! I thought this was about being cheep .

[colorado_rob]

Going stoveless cost nothing ! I thought this was about being cheep .

Nope, it's about trade offs.

1) cheap
2) functional
3) light

Choose two!

[Cheyou]

Going stoveless is all 3 ;0)

[blw2]

My thought exactly. A PCT buddy lost his spoon, and used his snow stake/potty trowel instead. Gag. Aren't there kosher-type laws for this sort of thing?

Well I'd hope it was only used to shovel dirt.....so no big deal. I wouldn't want to put it back in my pack if it was used for what you are thinking!

[TexasBob]

Nope, it's about trade offs.

1) cheap
2) functional
3) light

Choose two!

DIY alcohol stoves are all 3.

[Coffee]

Dogwood's initial response was right on target IMO. Consumable items will often be the heaviest category in a pack for segments over a few days in duration. I remember well my first JMT thru hike when I obsessed over "base weight" endlessly trying to figure out ways to get that number lower, and then I proceeded to carry probably 2 liters of water most of the time on a trail that has abundant water nearly everywhere. A liter of water weights 1 KG, or around 2.2 pounds so I was lugging over four pounds all the time for no reason. That offset the weight savings I obtained by buying a new tent four times over. Crazy.

All of that being said, dialing in consumable items is very difficult for many people and only comes with personal experience of how much water and food YOU need for a given distance under certain circumstances. It is normal, and probably not a terrible idea, to take a bit more than needed until confident in the strategy.

Regarding the actual question, I recently ordered a zPacks ArcBlast 55L at a whopping total cost of $380 (including two hip belt pockets and an optional strap). The pack should weigh 14 ounces less than my perfectly serviceable ULA Circuit which has been with me for at least 2,500 miles of hiking over the past five years. So I paid $27 per ounce for this savings. The Circuit is nearly perfect condition so it was an optional decision. But I'm curious about. both cuben packs and the air ventilation the pack provides vs. the Circuit and frankly just felt like trying it out, and I can afford to do it. So the answer to the question of how much to spend to save an ounce is a good one, but will be very individual and, as others have said, look first to food and water optimization before expensive gear changes.

[colorado_rob]

DIY alcohol stoves are all 3.

Nope, they are not functional, sorry! Of course, we all define what is "functional".

[Carl7]

While preparing for a section hike last summer in S. ME, NH, part of VT, I had weighed all equipment to the gram including food. I thought there was nowhere else I could cut. However, I did not properly account for food I picked along the way at huts, small stores, trail magic, etc. As such, I carried too much food, about 1/2 a pound per day. With a 5 day carry at one point, this was 2.5 pounds, 40 oz, of extra dead weight. There's nothing like getting to places like the top of Mt. Washington to leave Cliff bars in a hiker box. Now there's some sweat equity for you. I personally think closely watching consumables is the way to go. And by the way, at one point in the hike I felt like I would throw up if I had to eat another Cliff Bar, and I can typically eat anything.

[TexasBob]

Nope, they are not functional, sorry! Of course, we all define what is "functional".

I knew that was coming!

[Heliotrope]

Dogwood's initial response was right on target IMO. Consumable items will often be the heaviest category in a pack for segments over a few days in duration. I remember well my first JMT thru hike when I obsessed over "base weight" endlessly trying to figure out ways to get that number lower, and then I proceeded to carry probably 2 liters of water most of the time on a trail that has abundant water nearly everywhere. A liter of water weights 1 KG, or around 2.2 pounds so I was lugging over four pounds all the time for no reason. That offset the weight savings I obtained by buying a new tent four times over. Crazy.

All of that being said, dialing in consumable items is very difficult for many people and only comes with personal experience of how much water and food YOU need for a given distance under certain circumstances. It is normal, and probably not a terrible idea, to take a bit more than needed until confident in the strategy.

Regarding the actual question, I recently ordered a zPacks ArcBlast 55L at a whopping total cost of $380 (including two hip belt pockets and an optional strap). The pack should weigh 14 ounces less than my perfectly serviceable ULA Circuit which has been with me for at least 2,500 miles of hiking over the past five years. So I paid $27 per ounce for this savings. The Circuit is nearly perfect condition so it was an optional decision. But I'm curious about. both cuben packs and the air ventilation the pack provides vs. the Circuit and frankly just felt like trying it out, and I can afford to do it. So the answer to the question of how much to spend to save an ounce is a good one, but will be very individual and, as others have said, look first to food and water optimization before expensive gear changes.

Very well stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ARambler]

So many ways of not answering the question, but I think the best non-answer is to ask what percentage of on-trail expenses should be allocated to reducing weight?
So, if you are very tight on funds, the difference between a ULA circuit at 235 vs 380 is $145 or $10/oz. This might be a lot for you. If you are spending 10k on the trail, the $27/oz to replace a good pack might be a very good use of funds. I try to buy the best the first time and live with that decision. You can usually get lots of opinions on the web. > $20/oz seems reasonable.

[blw2]

The most money will be saved in the long run by buying the right gear the first time.

Replacing gear is what is what costs $$$.

Yeah, but its also a learning curve. "The greatest teacher, failure is. - Yoda"

I bought a pack years ago from amazon, thinking I might get into backpacking a bit. Ordered something cheap (a Teton Sports)thinking IF I do go it won't be very much or very far, so this will be good enough. I used it a bit, but I hated that pack. Now that I've done a lot more research, I see how really heavy it is.

Ditto my last tent purchase, previously mentioned in this thread. Several years ago now, my ancient kelty tent was dead and I decided to get a tent, a small 1-2 man for use camping with my son's scout pack & troop, and something small enough to do a bit of backpacking....thinking I won't go enough to justify spending a bunch on it....so the REI half dome.

Now later, as I gear up, I realize that I can afford a few things, and that packing up one mountain with this old desk jockey body, every ounce will count.....so to a point, even if I end up only doing 1 trip up to the mountains this summer, and never again.... and the rest of my camping short hikes down here in flat land, the weight savings will help make it more enjoyable
&/or free me up to carry just a bit more of my kids load or my wife's in the rare chance she comes along...
so,
while I'm not buying top of the line everything, I have spent for a light pack and a light tent where i figure I can get the biggest bang for the buck...saved a bit on other things though, such as a synthetic puffy instead of down....

[Dogwood]

Saving large amounts of wt in what's carried does not have to be about anally gram weenieing "dialing in" consumables only after much personal experience. I wrote "dialing down" intentionally so it would not be perceived as a gram weenie exercise.

Many backpackers, including the ones engaged in anally gram weenieing/oz counting gear, and buying into the assumption they are at a stage that it costs $-$$$$$ to reduce kit wt, can often benefit more from reducing consumable wt. This is especially valid if they are accustomed to multi day food hauls. As it's said wt added in and wt saved adds up. How true when it comes to multi day food hauls.

And, let's be real Americans. Quite a few of us can certainly survive a day or two or even benefit by consuming less food even on trail.

[colorado_rob]

All good thoughts and discussions! The consumable thing is a biggie of course, but it's all part of the Big Picture of total weight.

Yeah DW, there sure is a lot of Food Fear on the trail, some sort of base-animal-instinct fear of starving to death or something. Or dying of thirst. After a bit of experience, there really is no excuse carrying an additional 1/2 pound of food a day on a well populated trail for 3 seasons of the year (winter is another story, of course). Or carrying three quarts (or even 2 or even ONE in some cases) of water when there is a reliable source 5 miles ahead.

But I still think the main cause of too-heavy packs is the gear.

Anyway, my wife and I are starting a course at the CO mountain club in Golden, titled (I think) "Lightweight Long Distance Backpacking (including aspects of thru hiking)" as a follow-on to our regular backpacking school held each summer. Notice I didn't use the word "ultralight" because frankly, I'm not really a true ultralight fan. We're more somewhere in the middle of "lightweight" and UL. Anyway, I'll be sure to include discussions on consumables and of course, body weight.

Over the 5 decades of backpacking, I've found, even now in my old age that once you're below 20-25 pounds of total weight, there is very little extra hiking comfort. I formed a notional little graph some years back that tries to illustrate my point, see attached pic. Again, strictly notional, but about right for myself.

What shaving additional ounces and pounds off your base weight (non consumables) does, of course, is to allow one to hike longer distances in between resupply, sometimes important on some trails or routes (like the SHR or Heyduke, for example) where resupply is scarce. Then you have technical hiking trails where you carry technical gear, yikes, that stuff, even the best and lightest, gets heavy.

And I've said it before and like a broken record, I'll say it again, the absolute silliest thing I see out there is carrying a relatively heavy item that has a cheap and lighter alternative "just because". The classic is those ridiculous 6.7 ounce Nalgene bottles that I still see all over the place. Yikes! Three of those weighs one pound more than three gatorade (or other drink) bottles. WHY do people still carry those things?

[MuddyWaters]

And I've said it before and like a broken record, I'll say it again, the absolute silliest thing I see out there is carrying a relatively heavy item that has a cheap and lighter alternative "just because". The classic is those ridiculous 6.7 ounce Nalgene bottles that I still see all over the place. Yikes! Three of those weighs one pound more than three gatorade (or other drink) bottles. WHY do people still carry those things?

Because REI sells it, and so it must be needed to play the part of a backpacker.

I'll give it this they are probably a more secure shatterproof water container. If you plan on allowing your only water container to roll off off a cliff , then maybe you ought to carry one.

Or, one could simply be more careful.

I had a ride once where a smart water bottle rolled out the back of their car when they lifted the back so I could get my pack out. The smart water bottle fell about 18in on to some pointy limestone gravel. I later noticed that it had made a small hole in the side of the bottle, and that the bottle leaked over half full. I only normally use even lighter water bottles. But I'm careful that nothing happens to them . I also know that I can use a Ziploc as a backup water container if necessary for a while. I imagine that some people such as Scouts are not as careful and can benefit from a more durable containers.

I Know It one ex Scout backpacker at work who carries one around as a drink bottle all the time he's quite attached to it. It's literally a symbol of outdoor hiking or something to him

[lonehiker]

Going stoveless is all 3 ;0)

I have been experimenting with going stoveless (2 trips to Big Bend NP). But, and I know that I have yet to dial in my meal options, so far I have found that it has increased my dinner meal weight. I am trying to have a dinner meal of some substance as opposed to just snack crap like I eat for lunches. So my initial thoughts are that stove vs stoveless is wash in regards to weight.

Back on topic though; I don't just purchase a lighter piece of gear just to save weight. I purchase lighter as I replace gear. Although, I generally replace gear well before it actually wears out. Two contributing ideas to this mentality. One is that I don't want an item to fail while on a hike so I replace before it reaches its life expectancy. Secondly, I generally donate "used" gear to people interested hiking. I wouldn't want to give them an item that fails on first outing.

Reference water weight. I often start the day, on normal type trips, with as much as 3 quarts of water. My rational for this is that it actually saves me time vs stopping 1-2 times during the day to filter. By the time you stop, filter, fiddle-fart around with this and that, you could have been down the trail half a mile or more. Plus, water weight isn't constant so you could actually go through CO_Bob's entire graph of the law of diminishing returns in one day. I have also referenced this in previous posts. The law of diminishing returns reference pack weight that is.

[colorado_rob]

Nalgenes are stronger if they get run over by a truck, but I'm not sure at all they are less likely to break if dropped on a hard surface. Probably the opposite.

How many times has a truck run over your gear? Funny, once in my case. My own truck. Ouch.

Fill an old Nalgene (the lexan type), then fill a gatorade bottle. Climb a ladder and drop both on to concrete from about, say, 10 feet. Then climb higher. see which one breaks first. I tried this with mixed results. But Nalgenes do shatter depending on how they land. Gatorade bottle are more flexible, probably less likely to shatter, though I have broken one in a drop test.

But why is this strength/breakage even important? Who cares if every once in a while one of your bottles fails? Mine never have, ever.