[pct-l] packs: comfort vs weight

[elee@microsoft.com (Eric Lee (RAT))]

Dude wrote:
>
I have never done a thru-hike, although I have done several hundred 
miles on the PCT in the sierras.  I have done it both ways: heavy 
traditional pack with total weight at 50-65lbs, and I have done it 
the ultralight way with total pack weight around 25 lbs.  IMHO, there 
is no comparison, the ultralight method is just nore enjoyable and 
less strenuous, yet you still cover more ground.
>

Having a "heavy" pack doesn't mean that you will lug a heavy load.  The
way Luke's original question was phrased, it sounded like he's already
planning on having a lightweight load (though perhaps not truly
ultralight).  The question is, given a lightweight load, how much weight
can you shave off the pack and still be comfortable?

The answer is completely individual, as are most things about the PCT.
Usually the right answer is somewhere in between the two extremes.  No
one's crazy enough to carry their gear in a steamer trunk, right?  Way
too heavy.  On the other hand, I don't see any thu-hikers headed down
the trail stark naked, either.  To a certain point, adding more gear,
and thus more weight, gets you farther down the trail.  And after a
certain point, adding more weight prevents you from getting as far.  The
trick is to find that fine line of maximum performance, which is
different for everyone.

Speaking for myself personally (and I'm not yet a thru-hiker, though
hopefully someday), I tend to allow more weight budget in my backpack
and try to make it up in other places.  Once I get more than about 15
pounds hanging from my shoulders, the muscles in my upper back start to
rebel.  I may be able to get my base weight within that range, but if I
have to load up with food and water for a long leg, I'm sunk.  I
absolutely must have a full suspension system, even if it adds a pound
or two or three.  That added weight helps me get farther down the trail.

That means I don't go for those 12-ounce ultralight backpacks, though
some people love them.  On the other hand, there are some pretty
lightweight packs with good suspension systems.  There's no reason I
would use a 7 or 8 pound pack; that's just overkill for me.  As a rule
of thumb, I wouldn't consider any pack that drastically exceeds one
pound of weight per 1000 cubic inches of volume.  If the rest of my gear
is lightweight or ultralight, that means I need only 3500-4500 cubic
inches, which means my pack shouldn't be any more than 3.5 to 4.5
pounds, and it might be significantly less.  Sure, it's a far cry from
12 or 16 ounce packs that some are using, but I've determined that it's
the point of maximum performance for me.

Eric