What defines lightweight, ultralight and superultralight? These questions pop up time and again on forums and on blogs, so I thought it might be interesting to delve a bit deeper into this subject. Its going to be highly subjective, full of crazy weight calculations and definitions, so if you could care less about how heavy the stuff is which you carry through the outdoors you better don't read on. For all others, I am looking forward to a lively discussion!
There's a lot of different interpretations of what is UL, SUL and lightweight, and what I found a good definition is
Lightweight = 12-20 pounds
Ultralight = 6-11 pounds
Superultralight = 5 pounds or less
as posted by the
Jolly Green Giant. I live in the metric system, which, with its logical steps of tens, hundreds and thousands is a lot more appealing to me than ounces, pounds and whatnot. In that system the above would translate to the following:
Lightweight = 5,44 - 9,07 kg
Ultralight = 2,72 - 4,99 kg
Superultralight = 2,27 kg or less
For the sake of simplicity, and my love for even numbers, I'd round them up/ down to
Lightweight = 5,0 - 10,0 kg
Ultralight = 3,0 - 5,0 kg
Superultralight = anything under 3 kg
That's completely my own suggestion, and you will see many varied discussions and definitions on this topic. But I have more to say than rounding some number up and down, so bear with me. On the last trip, which was in the sign of UL, of course at some point the discussion turned to weights, and how the whole definition is a bit dodgy and open to interpretation. What we discussed about is that I with my Size S in clothing have it a lot easier to reach a UL weight of someone who's 195 cm tall and wears XXL. My small size is a benefit in every piece of gear, because I can sleep under a smaller tarp, use a smaller backpack and quilt, a shorter pad, I don't need to eat as much and the list continues. So I think someone should start to make a clear definition on those weights, and also on deviations of it.
Before I dive into deviations, lets shortly discuss the different ways of defining the weight. You got the base weight, which includes everything in the backpack minus consumables like food, water, fuel and toiletries. This leaves out the stuff you wear on your body - the clothes you wear, your hat, sunglasses, watch, camera, GPS, shoes, trekking poles, etc. To include them and the consumables, one could use the Skin Out Weight. Everything is in there when using the skin out weight; food, water, the clothes you wear and everything else. I believe the new definition of base weight should be the sum of base weight (everything you carry in the backpack minus consumables) and the stuff you wear on your body. Why? Because everything else is a sham in my opinion. You carry what you wear, and thus it should be included from the start and not as a separate point in gear lists. The other weight I would calculate and list is consumables, the food, water, and toiletries. Those two weights will be what I personally will be using from now on, with mentioning of what is worn in the backpack and on the body but with including both as one point when calculating the base weight.
Back to weight and deviations then. My suggestion would be that size Medium (M) is set as the middle standard, to which the above weights (the UL/ SUL/ Lightweight definitions) apply. You could even go a step further and define it so that someone of a certain size (height) is linked to that, but maybe its better to keep it simple. So if a Size M wants to go UL, he should aim for a three to five kilogram weight. And here the deviation to the current system could come in:
- Size S => subtract 5% from M for weight limit
- Size M => Standard
- Size L => add 5% from M for weight limit
- Size XL => add 10% from M for weight limit
- Size XXL => add 15% from M for weight limit
This might sound all hugely complicated, but in truth I think it would simplify, make the weight more personal and most importantly it would make the discussion more fair. Lets assume someone of Size S would like to go UL, then the maximum (new definition) base weight should be 5 kg * 0,95 (because he needs to subtract 5% from the M weight limit) so his max weight would be 4,75 kg. If on the other hand some who's a Size XL wants to go UL he should aim for a (5 kg * 1,1) 5,5 kg max base weight. This allows for the extra weight his larger clothes, shoes, tent, pad, etc. are likely to incur in comparison to someone who's a size S or M. I chose 5% as the value, not because I have done a scientific research on the differences in weights (not yet, at least ;) but because I feel that 250 g are likely a good number to accommodate the differences in the same piece of clothing if taken a number bigger or smaller.
Well, these were my thoughts on the weight debate. To conclude, this was a nice play with numbers, and hopefully helps to clarify maybe the whole weight discussion a bit. I think using the new definition of base weight would be an improvement to the current system, as you include also what you wear and carry on your body, and so close some loopholes. The deviation system on the other hand would make the weights comparable among people of different sizes, and would not put the larger folks at a disadvantage when it comes to staying under a certain weight limit. Finally, these are just ideas and guidelines, and not the be all and end all of the weight debate. If you're aim is to go UL and you're happy with 5,6 kg even if that would be 600 g over the limit of what is considered UL, as long as you feel good and happy with it, don't bother further about it. Its only numbers, after all, and if you decided to lighten up that's the right step you've taken!
Now I'm done and am looking forward to your questions, comments, and observations =)
What defines lightweight, ultralight and superultralight? These questions pop up time and again on forums and on blogs, so I thought it might be interesting to delve a bit deeper into this subject. Its going to be highly subjective, full of crazy weight calculations and definitions, so if you could care less about how heavy the stuff is which you carry through the outdoors you better don't read on. For all others, I am looking forward to a lively discussion!
There's a lot of different interpretations of what is UL, SUL and lightweight, and what I found a good definition is
Lightweight = 12-20 pounds
Ultralight = 6-11 pounds
Superultralight = 5 pounds or less
as posted by the
Jolly Green Giant. I live in the metric system, which, with its logical steps of tens, hundreds and thousands is a lot more appealing to me than ounces, pounds and whatnot. In that system the above would translate to the following:
Lightweight = 5,44 - 9,07 kg
Ultralight = 2,72 - 4,99 kg
Superultralight = 2,27 kg or less
For the sake of simplicity, and my love for even numbers, I'd round them up/ down to
Lightweight = 5,0 - 10,0 kg
Ultralight = 3,0 - 5,0 kg
Superultralight = anything under 3 kg
That's completely my own suggestion, and you will see many varied discussions and definitions on this topic. But I have more to say than rounding some number up and down, so bear with me. On the last trip, which was in the sign of UL, of course at some point the discussion turned to weights, and how the whole definition is a bit dodgy and open to interpretation. What we discussed about is that I with my Size S in clothing have it a lot easier to reach a UL weight of someone who's 195 cm tall and wears XXL. My small size is a benefit in every piece of gear, because I can sleep under a smaller tarp, use a smaller backpack and quilt, a shorter pad, I don't need to eat as much and the list continues. So I think someone should start to make a clear definition on those weights, and also on deviations of it.
Before I dive into deviations, lets shortly discuss the different ways of defining the weight. You got the base weight, which includes everything in the backpack minus consumables like food, water, fuel and toiletries. This leaves out the stuff you wear on your body - the clothes you wear, your hat, sunglasses, watch, camera, GPS, shoes, trekking poles, etc. To include them and the consumables, one could use the Skin Out Weight. Everything is in there when using the skin out weight; food, water, the clothes you wear and everything else. I believe the new definition of base weight should be the sum of base weight (everything you carry in the backpack minus consumables) and the stuff you wear on your body. Why? Because everything else is a sham in my opinion. You carry what you wear, and thus it should be included from the start and not as a separate point in gear lists. The other weight I would calculate and list is consumables, the food, water, and toiletries. Those two weights will be what I personally will be using from now on, with mentioning of what is worn in the backpack and on the body but with including both as one point when calculating the base weight.
Back to weight and deviations then. My suggestion would be that size Medium (M) is set as the middle standard, to which the above weights (the UL/ SUL/ Lightweight definitions) apply. You could even go a step further and define it so that someone of a certain size (height) is linked to that, but maybe its better to keep it simple. So if a Size M wants to go UL, he should aim for a three to five kilogram weight. And here the deviation to the current system could come in:
- Size S => subtract 5% from M for weight limit
- Size M => Standard
- Size L => add 5% from M for weight limit
- Size XL => add 10% from M for weight limit
- Size XXL => add 15% from M for weight limit
This might sound all hugely complicated, but in truth I think it would simplify, make the weight more personal and most importantly it would make the discussion more fair. Lets assume someone of Size S would like to go UL, then the maximum (new definition) base weight should be 5 kg * 0,95 (because he needs to subtract 5% from the M weight limit) so his max weight would be 4,75 kg. If on the other hand some who's a Size XL wants to go UL he should aim for a (5 kg * 1,1) 5,5 kg max base weight. This allows for the extra weight his larger clothes, shoes, tent, pad, etc. are likely to incur in comparison to someone who's a size S or M. I chose 5% as the value, not because I have done a scientific research on the differences in weights (not yet, at least ;) but because I feel that 250 g are likely a good number to accommodate the differences in the same piece of clothing if taken a number bigger or smaller.
Well, these were my thoughts on the weight debate. To conclude, this was a nice play with numbers, and hopefully helps to clarify maybe the whole weight discussion a bit. I think using the new definition of base weight would be an improvement to the current system, as you include also what you wear and carry on your body, and so close some loopholes. The deviation system on the other hand would make the weights comparable among people of different sizes, and would not put the larger folks at a disadvantage when it comes to staying under a certain weight limit. Finally, these are just ideas and guidelines, and not the be all and end all of the weight debate. If you're aim is to go UL and you're happy with 5,6 kg even if that would be 600 g over the limit of what is considered UL, as long as you feel good and happy with it, don't bother further about it. Its only numbers, after all, and if you decided to lighten up that's the right step you've taken!
Now I'm done and am looking forward to your questions, comments, and observations =)
UL Weight Watchers
Hi H.
ReplyDeleteIt always interests me to see how much emphasis is placed on the weight carried by a backpacker rather than the weight of the backpacker himself.
I walk happily when my own belly is small - even though I might be carrying a pack a lot heavier than it could be. If my belly is large then no matter how light my pack is, I will struggle!
:-)
(Interestingly the word verification is "eaterie"!
At 64kg (small/medium) I guess I'm a lightweight backpacker ;-)
ReplyDeleteMy summer base weight is currently around 5kg but of course that doesn't include what I'm wearing (shoes, socks, Goretex liners, baselayer, trousers and midlayer), additional clothing/ accessories such as rain gear, gloves, hat, Buff, sunglasses etc are included in base weight. Items that I carry in my pockets are also included such as compass, knife etc and also toiletries, phone and so on, spare clothing (baselayer/socks) are obviously included.
It could reasonably be argued that clothing worn most/all of the time needn't be included as we are all used carrying that amount of weight in our normal lives. Of course 'skin out' is the most accurate way to compare various peoples kit list once you factor in the size difference.
In the end the actual weight is of little importance but of course many of us, myself included like to have a weight figure to aim for.
I think my opinion is that only skin out matters in the end. Everything we carry takes energy to transport be it worn or in the bag. And if some one changes several kilos of food to light weight fishing rod, that is lightening up. Total skin out matters most. (And it's of course nice to know what kind of trip it is for and what is the "size" of the hiker.)
ReplyDeleteI don't care that much about strict numerical definitions (in backpacking that is!) but I'm nearly 190cm and 100kg. That means XL size clothing, long sleeping bags, size 46 shoes and hell lot of food. So I think this deviations thing is up to something.
And about food... Last friday I attented so skiing event. I skid 75km in 13 hours. According to my heart rate monitor I burned over 9100kcal of food during the event! That would be quite heavy. Luckily I do shorter days while backpacking. =)
Big people take bigger steps and are certainly not disadvantaged backpackers.
ReplyDeleteAlso the "traditional" base weight category makes more sense to me than what you're suggesting. There is an energy cost to wearing clothing, but energy expenditure is only part of the equation. Clothing on your body does not contribute to a painful back, clothing in your pack does.
If my backpack feels light on my back then it is light. If it feels heavy then I have packed too much food!
ReplyDeleteKnow thyself. When my pack is under 10kg I'm invincible. When my pack gets to be 13kg or more things start to get uncomfortable and technical ground gets harder to cover. I try to keep my packweight round 10kg-12kg for the first day. Pack weight is variable. The weight of my clothes (those that never go in the pack) is more or less constant, there's not a lot to be gained by choosing an alternative baselayer, trousers or socks etc. My numbers, a function of my physiology, my wear and tear, the kind of trips I aspire to doing, my fitness, my mental attitude, are relevant to me and nobody else.
ReplyDeleteI try to keep the weight down and probably need a tent lighter than the Akto. Also I get cramp easily so tend to carry water which is heavy stuff.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia has a good definition on Backpacking. "hiking and overnight camping in the wilderness with supplies carried in a backpack for the entire duration of the trip, as opposed to dayhiking or car camping"
ReplyDeleteI dont care if a person does it with a 40lb pack (done that) or 2kg pack. We don't need classes. We need to get people into the outdoors and if all they can only afford is cheep heavy kit then good. Going to the hills is the goal. We need to make it accessible and not put people of with them thinking the only way they can do it is with ultralight kit.
Well said Alan. I find it odd that the 5kg loads so often carried by those who say it is the way so often only do short routes and no summits. I can see why so many see no benefits in slashing pack weight.
I am for light pack weights and kit by the way. I am not for labelling my approach to backpacking or anyone else.
I too am not a fan of this trend towards categorization. Trip distance, terrain and difficulty also have an impact on kit weight. Someone walking in dry woods during summer can take an awful lot less and lighter gear than someone hiking through remote, mountainous regions with a poor weather forecast but both can, in my opinion, be going 'ultralight'. I also believe it's possible to go 'ultralight' ski touring and 'ultralight' packrafting despite it being quite difficult to get down to the prescribed weight classes. Andy Skurka's trip this year is a case in point, he couldn't go much lighter without seriously endangering himself but his pack weights will be considerable compared to the classic 'ultralight' set-up.
ReplyDeleteGoing 'ultralight' or 'super ultralight' is more about following the principles behind each 'classification'. Going 'ultralight' requires you to limit your contingencies based on trip conditions, choose some multifunction equipment, build a 'system' and most importantly learning the skills that allow you to cope in the wilderness with less equipment. Going 'super ultralight' just requires you to take the next step, such as combining rain gear and shelter system and possibly foregoing a lot of comfort in return for a lighter pack (thin foamy sleeping mat and no-cook meals).
We all need to find our individual sweet spot and it will depend on a lot of variables. A single '3-season' system, as promoted during BPL's recent '24' initiative will not be 'super ultralight' and I can see things being 'dialled back' in the future. I think we've seen what the lightweight limit is and it's too light for most people, certainly for more than a high summer overnighter. I also question the trend towards 'semi-disposable' super ultralight gear and it's impact on natural resources.
Oh and I'm stuck in the middle of Medium and Large. I like to call it Extra Medium. I have to have Long sleeping bags and Large bivys (being just half an inch over 6 foot) but my shirts are Medium and so is my backpack (I put that down to my long sexy scarred and tattooed legs...)
Interesting and thought provoking post Hendrik. Keep up the good work.
Hi Alan, you're right, much emphasis is placed on what is carried instead of what is one's own weight. I am slim at 175 cm and around 60 kg, and thus do not need to worry a lot about my own weight, which is why I can concentrate on the weight of my backpack =)
ReplyDeleteWise words, Richard - in the end the actual weight is of little importance, but as you I like to aim for something. I had a look at your summer base weight and like it a lot, as I said on your blog. Re: Including what's worn and what's not in a base weight number, I believe its only really for being able to compare. If one wears heavy clothing and equipment on the body and thus leaves it out of his pack list, I find it deceiving. But in the end, yes, we're used to carry it and is just there so that statistics can be made.
Lightening Up, I agree with you, skin out is what matters, but skin out also does include food. The deviations would allow for people of different sizes to compare to each other, and I hope that this topic is picked up by some more mainstream people than me!
Len, I never said big people are at a disadvantage. I do not believe that the traditional base weight calculation is good in terms of calculation if someone is UL, SUL or lightweight, as it leaves room to cheat. But that's my opinion =)
Dave, in the end this was just an exercise in calculations. I generally do agree that it doesn't change a lot what one wears, but because in our lives so much value is placed on numbers I believe that when saying "I'm UL" when the actual weight is closer to 7 or 8 kg incl. clothes worn, then I believe we also should place some value on it here - although it does not matter much, because as you, me and others said, those numbers are only relevant to us personally and nobody else.
Greg, trying to keep the weight down is the right thing to do =) Maybe with a lighter load you cramp less and thus would need to carry less water? The Tarptent Moment would probably be a good alternative to your Akto, have you checked it out?
Martin, I'm not trying to tell people what to take or how to go to the forests and hills - like you said, it is important that they go. Those people can go like they fancy, be it the cheap heavy kit or lighter kit, its the same to me. My thoughts with this post are more aimed at the small community of lightweight/ UL/ SUL folks, because for some of them - not all - these numbers are important, and to ensure that one can compare apples with apples my suggestions above.
If we are thinking about earning bragging rights in the lightweight community (As it often seems to be important for some people!) the size of the hiker should be taken into account. For example Hendrik can "easily" break the SUL limit for a weekender. For me it's quite a lot harder.
ReplyDeleteBut do the categories matter? No. The only thing important is hiking. But if we like to disscus about lightening our loads weight categories make it a bit easier. And I think that the categories should be based on skin out weight (excluding consumables)! When going really light people are starting to wear their shelter, maybe part of their sleeping system etc. While doing this the base weight of the pack is not that good factor anymore.
Though in my opinion the best way to discripe the weight of your pack would be complete list of everything you are taking with you from the moment when you take the first step. But it requires work to post these lists to the net so maybe categories do make some sense?
And it is important to notice that many really light kits are taken out only for overnighters or weekenders and often in optimal conditions. Is this done only for bragging rights? I don't know. If one would want, one coul do overnighter in good conditions with 0g baseweight... My pack usually ain't that light because my gear is intented for year around use and the trips are one week long on (nearly) treeless areas. And during the week, weather can be almost anything. (I've had snowfall, high winds and -5C and +25C with constant sun shine - on same trip in July). For me the most important thing is to be able to hike my hike no matter what. Though some hikes require light loads... =)
Joe: Luckily there is something for you in the market. LMF makes their Spork in size XM ( extra medium). =D I've found it near perfect. It has bigger spoon than the most spoons, it's long enough for eating commercial cook-in-a-bag foods and the fork end can be used as spatule while frying bacon. With other stuff you'll have to stick with M and L.
At 115kg, I'm well aware that the most excess weight I carry is around my waist, I've always been big, but when I stopped smoking 6+ years ago, I got my appetite back... :(
ReplyDeleteBut I just want to address that point. Part of cutting my base weight is to make carrying my pack more tolerable, and in doing so makes for a more enjoyable experience, which means I want to spend more time in the hills, so I get fitter.
Well, that's the theory anyway...
I still need to hit the gym and watch the diet.
Another way to look at this would be to pick a percentage of a persons weight and leave it at that. I agree that it should be a skin out but Ryan Jordan makes a good point here:
ReplyDelete"Base Weight is herein defined as the dry weight of gear and non consumable supplies in your pack, excluding clothing worn, items normally carried (like trekking poles), and food, fuel, and water. We don't claim that this is the most accurate representation of one's pack weight, but it is the most popular, and we use it herein to maintain consistency with what most perceive to be their pack weight."
Picking what most people use as a measure of what you carry (Just your pack weight.) may not be the most accurate, it is the one that they can relate to best.
So here is my suggestion:
SUL = <5% body weight
UL = <7% body weight
L = <10% body weight
This allows for variations of people size and it makes it easy to make a more accurate comparison.
Just my 2 percent of my national currency value.
:-D
My summer base weight is about 5kg, my standard photoequipment inkl. tripod is around 4,5 kg.
ReplyDeleteam I still a UL hiker?
;)
Numbers turn UL to circle around itself. I am with Joe in this. UL is to strive for the lightest possible in the circumstances. It has to fulfill its purpose. Gear is simple means. The other way we unconscious tend to choose area/time according to achieve the weight goal. Nonsense. SUL can still be too much. A 15 kg base weight can be very light. I glad for the lightweight movement and paradigm shift in the outdoor scene, but I see the UL topic to become nothing more than other technology obsession. Look in digital camera forums, they analyze picture and camera quality to the detail, but do not take photographs.
ReplyDeleteJoe, you make valid points. I like your comment about how UL depends on the region + weather, that is very true. Andrew Skurka definitely is going UL this winter/ spring/ summer/ autumn if you ask me, but many others seem to think differently.
ReplyDeleteGood point to look at the principles/ philosophy/ skills behind the "classification", good comments there. I reckon that should be clear, though, if you aim for those numbers. If you want to go UL you need to know the ideas behind it, just buying the lightest gear doesn't bring you further (well, it helps you to get there, but to just replace all your gear with a lighter option isn't UL).
As you I also find the trend towards disposable (because that's what it is for me) gear in form of "I use this shelter for one summer and then it goes to the trash" very bad, in my opinion it is completely against the principle of UL.
It seems that most people go to the extreme, and then go back to their comfort zone. First you go down to a 4 kg base weight, and then you realize that you miss some comfort and it goes up again a bit.
I'm happily a S, but still always need to check my size again. I might have something for your Size M, though.
Lightening up, you are correct with that, it is likely more about bragging rights, and those do not really matter. What matters is that you feel comfortable. But for comparison, as you noted, it would make sense. The list shouldn't be too difficult to make, I think, as one usually lists everything either way (at least I do!). It seems in the USA there are also some people who do UL trips over a longer time, for example many thru-hikers seem to have a very low base weight, which could be considered UL in my opinion. Also here in Europe are folks who go for two week trips in the Pyrenees with a 4 to 5 kg base weight; though I admit many do only weekends/ one nighters.
Fraser, I think everyone has different reasons for going lightweight, and as long as someone makes that decision n order to be able to be more outside and enjoy it more, that's a good decision in my book =) Good luck with the diet, and welcome for walking here with Phil and Steven in April/ May!
harttj, just because it is the most popular doesn't mean it is the best to use. I think one should use what is the right. If you are in the position to educate and teach people what is right to use, I believe you should do so. And BPL certainly would be in that position.
The % of body weight is interesting as well. But a problem I see with that is that many people seem to have problems with being honest what is their weight, and it can change - in the morning after your morning toilet before your breakfast your a kilo or two lighter than in the evening - that could be a 100 g or more difference :D
Anonymous, as a fellow photographer I'd say almost ;) But certainly lightweight!
Esben, you are speaking some true words there. I do observe that already now on UL forums, its more about optimizing a (imaginary) pack list than going out. And while 15 kg can be lightweight if you plan something like the Alaska-Yukon-Expedition, I believe for what we "mortals" do can be done lighter than that, given the person has the skills and knowledge. I concur with you, Joe and the others that what is important is less the number, but more the mind set. However, for the sake of "bragging rights" and comparison, some standard would be nice.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Hendrik. I guess I will be both 'lightweight' and an 'ultralighter' during the course of a year. That works for me. I know that I can happily take 3kg for a summer overnighter but I will be well over that on the longer trips I have planned. A lot of the principles and 'tactics' will be the same but my contingencies may be increased, especially when it comes to considerations about remoteness.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of semi-disposable gear really interests me. I have decided against a cuben shelter this year purely for this reason. They are also very expensive for negligible weight savings. Maybe in the future we'll find other materials that will offer cuben's weight saving but with a longer life span. I also want to try and only buy recycled/recyclable products in the future. It won't always be possible and sometimes there will be a weight penalty but it will weigh less on my conscience!
Lightening Up - it's good to know the manufacturers are finally realising that there is a market for us XM guys!
Hendrik, comparison standards are fine, only have a standard situation too ("typical 4 day hike in Finland in Spring"). Also I think, even the most obsessed pack optimizer still do go out, which is good, but with diffrent objectiv - to apply those gadgets. Nothing wrong with that, there are worse games and toys for boys, but it should not become a general standard, that puts people off. Lightweight is also the process, not the weight goal. And I hope more people will join that. So lets keep it easy. I also tend to measure time as a counter factor. My kit shall allow me an efficient progress or more time/energy for other things (photography, socializing with trip partners etc.). If 200 g less force me to fiddle with a set up (tarps often do!) than its not worth the fuss. So, what it all comes down to is trip ojectives and the importance to define and apply to them.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, your own weight - or more accurately any excess of it - is the most important factor.
ReplyDeleteThe good thing about these lists is simply that they get people thinking and reappraising their own approach to kit, but beyond that they can become a very negative obsession.
What really matters is getting out hiking with the lightest kit that performs well and satisfies you, leaving behind all excess baggage of both gear and life in general.
I wrestled with the same problems of defining base weight when I published my gear lists. I made the distinction between clothing worn all the time (footwear, socks, normal legwear, baselayer), which I didn't include because it doesn't contribute to perceived pack weight, and extras (rainwear, down insulating jacket, gloves etc.) which are included because they are sometimes in the pack.
Your overall body size doesn't necessarily make a lot of difference to pack weight. For food, not everyone eats what they expend - I eat a lot less when backpacking than when at home. Most (all?) UK tents come in one size regardless of your height. There isn't a lot of difference between mattress weights for different sizes.
At 115kg, I'm well aware that the most excess weight I carry is around my waist, I've always been big, but when I stopped smoking 6+ years ago, I got my appetite back... :(
ReplyDeleteBut I just want to address that point. Part of cutting my base weight is to make carrying my pack more tolerable, and in doing so makes for a more enjoyable experience, which means I want to spend more time in the hills, so I get fitter.
Well, that's the theory anyway...
I still need to hit the gym and watch the diet.
I too am not a fan of this trend towards categorization. Trip distance, terrain and difficulty also have an impact on kit weight. Someone walking in dry woods during summer can take an awful lot less and lighter gear than someone hiking through remote, mountainous regions with a poor weather forecast but both can, in my opinion, be going 'ultralight'. I also believe it's possible to go 'ultralight' ski touring and 'ultralight' packrafting despite it being quite difficult to get down to the prescribed weight classes. Andy Skurka's trip this year is a case in point, he couldn't go much lighter without seriously endangering himself but his pack weights will be considerable compared to the classic 'ultralight' set-up.
ReplyDeleteGoing 'ultralight' or 'super ultralight' is more about following the principles behind each 'classification'. Going 'ultralight' requires you to limit your contingencies based on trip conditions, choose some multifunction equipment, build a 'system' and most importantly learning the skills that allow you to cope in the wilderness with less equipment. Going 'super ultralight' just requires you to take the next step, such as combining rain gear and shelter system and possibly foregoing a lot of comfort in return for a lighter pack (thin foamy sleeping mat and no-cook meals).
We all need to find our individual sweet spot and it will depend on a lot of variables. A single '3-season' system, as promoted during BPL's recent '24' initiative will not be 'super ultralight' and I can see things being 'dialled back' in the future. I think we've seen what the lightweight limit is and it's too light for most people, certainly for more than a high summer overnighter. I also question the trend towards 'semi-disposable' super ultralight gear and it's impact on natural resources.
Oh and I'm stuck in the middle of Medium and Large. I like to call it Extra Medium. I have to have Long sleeping bags and Large bivys (being just half an inch over 6 foot) but my shirts are Medium and so is my backpack (I put that down to my long sexy scarred and tattooed legs...)
Interesting and thought provoking post Hendrik. Keep up the good work.
Hi H.
ReplyDeleteIt always interests me to see how much emphasis is placed on the weight carried by a backpacker rather than the weight of the backpacker himself.
I walk happily when my own belly is small - even though I might be carrying a pack a lot heavier than it could be. If my belly is large then no matter how light my pack is, I will struggle!
:-)
(Interestingly the word verification is "eaterie"!