Pack Weight Thoughts

[the_camera_poser]

Here's what I've winnowed my pack weights down too. Bear in mind, this is me carrying gear for my whole family, like the good mule-boy I am. I've already got a Coleman Phad tent, which is a nice, roomy 3 person, 3 season tent with a big vestibule. I'm not keen at replacing this! Anyhow, what option would you go for? Do you think the weights are outrageous for a moderately fit, but very large framed 38 yo? It's going into a WE Karijini.

Option 1: 3 LL Bean Katahdin Climashield Sleeping Bags (-7c, synthetic fibres, 4kg all up) + Coleman Phad Tent (3.8 kg) Total pack weight 17.4 kg for 2 night trip. This option will cost me $500 Aus

Option 2: 3 Marmot Helium Down Bags (-10c, 2.6kg total) + Coleman Phad Tent Total Pack Weight 14.9kg for two night trip This option will cost me around $1200 Aus

Option 3: 3 Marmot Helium Down Bags (-10c, 2.6kg total) + Hilleberg Nallo 4 or Big Agnes Copper Spur 3 UL Tent (2.5 or 2.2 kg)Total Pack Weight 13.3kg for two night trip This option will cost me around $2200 Aus

The extra money over #1 will really hurt. Also, I really like the idea of synthetic bags that weigh the same as a down bag in a wet climate like ours. Anyhow, do you think 17.4 is an outrageous weight? Is the weight reduction worth 700-1700 Aus? What do you think?

[Clownfish]

I'm also the pack mule for the family. My pack usually weighs in around 20kg, for a 3 day walk - haven't done longer yet.

I'm 43, of, shall we say, robust build and no fitness fanatic.

It hasn't killed me yet.

[the_camera_poser]

Mules of the world, Unite!

Thanks Clownfish- that's very helpful. I just really wanted to get a "reality" check on the whole ultralight thing, and see what others are carrying.

[photohiker]

Outrageous.

That's pushing 40lb in the old money.

I'm lightweight (72kg, 187cm) so that clouds my thinking somewhat, but in any case if you want to be able to use your joints and feet for bushwalking into old age, it might be wise to look after them now. Because you can carry heavy loads, doesn't mean you should, especially if you haven't spent time acclimatising your body to carrying such weights.

The problem with being the 'mule' is that if you land up injuring yourself, who is going to carry all the heavy gear back out?

Sorry to be disagreeable, but I'd spend the $2500 (extra $300 for an Osprey Exos 58L, 1.1kg - you don't need the big pack if the sleeping bags are compact), saving another 2kg, bringing you down to 11.3kg Now we are talking.

[tasadam]

I don't know which option would suit you, but I will give you my pack weights...

My wife and I go on walks together, so we share the load between both of us.
It's camera gear that loads us down.
On a recent 4 day walk into New Pelion Hut and beyond, I carried 24 KG in, my wife carried 19KG.
My pack was still over 20KG's when I came out, but would have been below (psychological advantage only) had some knob not left all that rubbish that I carried out.
The camera gear we carried on this trip was two tripods, two bodies, 4 lenses, 8 batteries, memory cards, remote controls, cleaning cloths, camera bags etc...
I plan to weigh it all again to see what we carried just in camera gear.

For what it's worth I hover between 61 and 63kg's and my wife is about 54.

On an 8 day 7 night walk back in February I think I started with about 27KG's.
Importance on taking your time and having the load packed comfortably, and the pack adjusted correctly, tweaking the straps when necessary.
I'm lucky with my fitness, but my feet have their problems.

OK, call me mad. It's what I enjoy.

[photohiker]

OK, call me mad. It's what I enjoy.

You're mad.

One of the reasons I push down on my pack weight is so that the camera gear doesn't overload me. I'm sure I _could_ carry a 20kg pack, but I'm just as sure I wouldn't enjoy the trip as much as with a lighter pack, and my body would suffer. I used to carry spares of just about everything except boots and never use most of it. Even without buying LW gear, a lot of excess can be trimmed, within the bounds of safety and common sense of course. I haven't gotten anywhere near Under10kg yet but as stuff wears out, I'm generally looking for something that is as good or better performance with less weight, and that's not hard to do.

[tasadam]

as stuff wears out, I'm generally looking for something that is as good or better performance with less weight

Agree to that... My tent weight is now half the weight of my old one. Well, it's a start.

[the_camera_poser]

I'm....uh....117 kg, but believe it or not I'm only around 15 kg overweight- I'm just big. For most hiking we'll just carry a 350D and one L lens, and maybe a 50/1.8 or 28/2.8 lens. 500-1000 grams tops I'd guess.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[the_camera_poser]

LOL- my six pack has become a keg......

Actually, I'm not THAT fat- I'm big.

[samh]

I agree with the photohiker. I would look probably for a lighter pack, which can easily save you a kilo. When I did the OLT in June we had food for 6.5 days I carried 22.5 kg, my wife 11.5 kg. Probably the most annoying piece of gear I bought was my pack it's 3.2 kilo next on the list for me would be a new tent at the moment we have a 2-3 person 4 season tent which is 3.2 kilo.

[photohiker]

Sorry Photohiker but there may come a time in your life when you will become the mule. Mules tend to wind up with the tent, cooking gear and anything else that is considered common. The choice is the other people just do not come along.

Thanks pop

Actually, I suspect I have more than a few years on you, and I'm now more likely to be shedding weight onto the kids packs than carry it for them. I've done my share though, including carrying 1 year olds in backpack harnesses up and down mountains etc. My motto for family excursions these days is that we all share the load according to our capacity. If they don't want to carry much we choose the excursion accordingly.

If you do have to be the mule, that should inform your decisions on where to apply the upgrades for weight/performance. Cooking gear, Tent, sleeping gear.

[the_camera_poser]

I agree with the photohiker. I would look probably for a lighter pack, which can easily save you a kilo. When I did the OLT in June we had food for 6.5 days I carried 22.5 kg, my wife 11.5 kg. Probably the most annoying piece of gear I bought was my pack it's 3.2 kilo next on the list for me would be a new tent at the moment we have a 2-3 person 4 season tent which is 3.2 kilo.

Well, I estimate my 8-day pack weight with the cheapest gear to be around 26 kg, which includes gear for three of us. If the wife carries up to 12kg, rather than the 7-10 limit I've set, then I'm at 24-25 Kg for 8 days, which isn't that bad, but 20kg would be better!

Grrrr.....never a clear path in the wilderness of outdoor gear LOL

[the_camera_poser]

Other than the gear mentioned above, I don't know where else I can practically trim weight. Here's what I've allocated for my pack:

WE Karijini (Large) 3.2 kg + liner
Sleeping Bags x3 2.6-4 kg
Coleman Tent 3.8 kg
Raingear 1 kg
Clothes for us 3 kg
Food 1.5kg/day (excluding snacks)

Base weight is 15kg, + food. The wife and mini-mule carry everything else.

Do you think I need a 90 litre pack for that? Seems excessive, though I need to be able to take excess food for longer trips, and could potentially end up carrying the kid's pack too (2.5-3 kg of stuff). I'd love to go for a light-weight pack, but I'm not sure that'd be the right choice, especially as we plan to do the OT as soon as we can.

[photohiker]

90L is a big pack.

Have you got a pack now? Why don't you assemble all that gear and see if it fits what you have?

The disadvantage of a large pack is that you are more likely to add things because there is room. For that reason, I'm thinking of reducing my pack size to something that will fit what I need with little spare room.

[Son of a Beach]

For me that's an advantage! I can take some luxuries that way thAt I couldn't fit in a smaller pack. It's worth the extra weight sometimes.

Having said that, does anyone really take extra stuff just because there's room in the pack? When I'm packing for a walk, I lay everything out that I will be taking before I put anything in the pack. There is usually room for more but I never go and get anything else to fill up the space. You can always tighten a big pack to make it smaller, but you can't make a small pack bigger. I can't afford two packs and there are some occaisions when I really do need all that space. Hmmm I think I'm getting off topic.

[norts]

I use a large pack but it is not full very often. I like the larger pack so I dont have to pack it tightly every time. I do have a smaller pack that everything will fit in for a 3- night walk but it is a tight fit and I have to pack carefully.
I dont think that a larger pack will automatically make you take more. It is just a matter of self control.

Roger

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[the_camera_poser]

My current bag is gargantuan. It's a bit expedition-sized thing I got in my vigorous and energetic youth- the main compartment is around 95 litres, with maybe 20 litres in the large top pockets, two sizeable side pockets and a mid-sized front pocket. It's a bit bigger than the Osprey 110 all up, I'd say, and a bit more narrow, but taller. In my excitable youth I'd fill that big momma to the brim, and tie stuff off the sides and stuff my tarp/tent up under the hood. No more, no more. I use constraint now- I have grown wise in my age-induced frailty. But, I do like the option of hauling in 90+ litres of stuff to a base camp in places like Lees Paddock, WOJ or Scott Kilvert, and then doing a series of day walks from a central camp. I've always enjoyed that. So I guess really, bigger is better, if you don't automatically fill it.

I used to be Wall-E- see rubbish, cram rubbish

I just crammed 16kg into my pack, strolled around the yard in strong winds (3 acre yard on a bit of a slope), and can report that 17kg will be no worries. I'll be able to walk all day with that. 20kg will be a stretch, but do-able. But as for the OT.....Jenny Craig might be in order- or at least a bit of exercise......

[corvus]

I'm with you norts,
Big pack even if it does weigh 3.2kg fits everything (inside) without cramming.
c

[Nuts]

narr small pack (lol), whats 5 minutes

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Nuts]

Ive never had much luck with synthetic sleeping bags keeping warm. (I have some Marmot -1c (trestles) that I could sell you cheap but they are more like +3/4 for little people) The trade off for your gear list cp (as i think you probably know) is likely to be quality as much as weight (Both governed by budget). Even that heavier weight mentioned shouldnt be a problem for you (given your 'size')

My 'weeklong' (75L?) pack is around 2.1kg....

[the_camera_poser]

size = HELLUVA LOTTA MAN!

Hoorah! LOL

Now where are those doughnuts? DOH!

[the_camera_poser]

Ive never had much luck with synthetic sleeping bags keeping warm. (I have some Marmot -1c (trestles) that I could sell you cheap but they are more like +3/4 for little people) The trade off for your gear list cp (as i think you probably know) is likely to be quality as much as weight (Both governed by budget). Even that heavier weight mentioned shouldnt be a problem for you (given your 'size')

My 'weeklong' (75L?) pack is around 2.1kg....

That's a spew that Marmot's quality has dropped- they used to make solid stuff- in line with Mont/Macpac sort of quality. Well, time changes all.

[Nuts]

Marmot make excellent sleeping bags. I was saying that i was less impressed with synthetic bags in general (tried a few brands). Beware some who claim ridiculous temperature ratings...

As Marmot say their rating is a 'comfort' rating and measurement for the average size male. I am more taking about weight for warmth, they still are a far cry from down bags (Marmot (600 fill) down bag would get the same temp rating but likely 3/400g lighter) Synthetic bags in general also seem to come with the cheapest shell and 'fittings'.

[the_camera_poser]

Marmot make excellent sleeping bags. I was saying that i was less impressed with synthetic bags in general (tried a few brands). Beware some who claim ridiculous temperature ratings...

As Marmot say their rating is a 'comfort' rating and measurement for the average size male. I am more taking about weight for warmth, they still are a far cry from down bags (Marmot (600 fill) down bag would get the same temp rating but likely 3/400g lighter) Synthetic bags in general also seem to come with the cheapest shell and 'fittings'.

Yeah, I'm thinking that the Helium bags might be good. Ever had a play with one of them?

[geoskid]

Hi TCP,
I personally would carry the extra weight .If you are happy with option No.1 then go for it. As a father of a young family
'Opportunity Cost' is very important also, something that can be overlooked in the excitement. As a capably framed young man, 17kg is a good weight considering you are carrying for loved ones. Also as a family, you have defined your most likely
bushwalks, yep - go option one with confidence

[flyfisher]

G'day tcp, I wouldn't be too worried about 18 to 22kg's with your body size you'll handle it orrite.
I'm pushing 64 and about 95kg's or a bit more and my usual winter pack weight is 20kg's give or take a bit. A couple of years back I carried 26kg's up the Lake Bill track (and back down which is harder) with no (lasting) ill effects.
Go for your first option and upgrade when you wear that stuff out.
ff

[Taurë-rana]

I would have thought that carrying 17kg would be a stroll in the park for you, given your "well-builtness". If you go on the lighter end of what's recommended so 25% body weight, that gives you nearly 30kg! Mind you, I'm not entirely convinced that that method of working out what you should be able to carry is necessarily correct. If you are concerned about your knees, trekking poles used properly make a big difference.