At this point in the planning stage (Christmas approaching...), it is important that I shore up my priorities for new/needed gear. As mentioned before, I am searching for the items which give the greatest weight savings per dollar spent. Below is a link to the list (in spreadsheet form, obvi) showing the finalized new gear list.
SPREADSHEET LINK
Priority is based on cost per ounce saved, ounces saved, pack volume saved, and necessity. By reducing pack volume, I am able to carry a smaller (and lighter) pack, therefore reducing weight. Items that save significant amounts of both weight and volume (like the shelter and sleeping bag) have been placed higher on the list. Items 1 thru 6 on the list are what I've deemed prerequisites; that is, gear that may or may not not save weight but are still necessary for the trip. These include things like a point-and-shoot camera and a sit pad, which add weight but are still something I want to carry.
Items 7 & 8: Immediately following the prerequisites is a new water filtration system, which consists of the filter itself (Sawyer Mini) and a water storage bag (Evernew 2 liter). Together, these 2 items cost only $36 and save 1 lb 3 oz (1.9 $/oz). They replace a heavier pump-style water filter and 1 liter Nalgene bottle.
Item 9: The next piece of gear is a new shelter; the ProTrail from TarpTent. My current shelter is a two-person REI Camp Dome (5 lb 1 oz, incl. tent body, fly, poles, stakes, and lightweight polycro ground sheet). The ProTrail is a lightweight, tarp-style, single-person shelter that relies on hiking poles to pitch. Consisting of little more than a tarp and shallow bathtub-like bug net/floor, its total weight (incl. tent, stakes, and polycro ground sheet) is only 1 lb 11 oz (3 lb 2 oz saved, 4.2 $/oz).
Item 10: At 6.0 $/oz, an Enlightened Equipment Enigma top quilt in place of my mummy sleeping bag saves almost 5 liters of pack space along with 2 lb 4 oz.
Item 11: A pair of Ultralight Rain Pants from AntiGravity Gear would replace my zipoff style hiking pants and save 10 oz at 5.5 $/oz.
Item 12: Next is a new cookpot. Moving from a nonstick-coated pot to an un-coated titanium one is made possible by the fact that I won't be doing any cooking of food directly in the pot; I'll only be boiling water for dehydrated meals (food tends to stick to titanium pots). In addition, the most water I'll need to boil at a time is 2 cups (16 fl oz, 475 mL). At 1.8 L (61 fl oz), my current pot is oversized. Switching to a SnowPeak Trek 700 will save 5.3 oz for only 7.3 $/oz.
Item 13: While the weights of some categories like toiletries and food can be minimized cheaply by simple research and diligence (and spreadsheets), the insulating clothing layer tends to be one where the only weigh way to save weight is to spend money. Even still, a new (goose) down jacket from MontBell (5.6 oz) would replace my (synthetic) down hooded jacket from Columbia (22.5 oz) at a cost of just 9.6 $/oz. In addition to being more lightweight than synthetic down, goose down is more compressible. This allows me to reduce my pack volume and weight even further.
Item 14: Hanging one's food isn't a legal requirement on the Oregon section of the PCT, but sometimes it will be necessary. For example, mice and ants are fairly common on the trail. The former have been known to chew their way through tents and food bags in search of tasty treats. Because of this, a simple method (meaning not necessarily bear proof like in the Sierra Nevadas) of hanging food is desired. The PCT hang is both simple and quick, requiring minimal gear. ZPacks sells a Bear Bag Kit, which consists of a durable (but lightweight) food bag (1.4 oz), 50' of lightweight cordage (1.4 oz), a rock sack (0.1 oz), and a small carabiner (0.1 oz). These 4 items would save 4.4 oz at 10.3 $/oz.
Item 15: The main way to save weight on my sleeping pad is to switch to a closed cell foam (CCF) pad, as opposed to an inflatable mattress. The downside to CCF pads is that they are (for me) terribly uncomfortable. The other way to save weight is to shrink the size of the pad. By switching to a pad that only extends from my head to upper thighs, I can shed about 1/3 of the weight and still maintain a comfortable sleep system. My empty backpack would typically serve as the remaining terminus of the mattress, resting under my feet and lower legs to provide insulation and comfort. A Thermarest NeoAir XLite (short length, 8.0 oz) would replace my REI Flash (regular length, 16.5 oz) at 15.3 $/oz.
All items listed are also on my PCT Pinterest board.
Now that I've decided on bringing a stove (as opposed to going stoveless), the only decision left is which stove system to use. Only 2 options remain at this point: A denatured alcohol Fancy Feast stove and canister fuel with a screw-on stove.
A Fancy Feast stove is a simple, lightweight, and inexpensive option for lightweight backpacking. It is an empty cat food can with holes punched around the top of the can. One simply fills the stove with denatured alcohol (Heet gasoline additive is usually easy to find) and lights it on fire. Once the cook pot is on top, the flames are forced out of the holes creating fairly efficient flames. Normally, this type of system is the lightest for shorter trips. The stove weighs just 6 g and the amount of fuel brought on the trip is adjustable (as opposed to a canister fuel container). In addition, there is flexibility in the alcohol fuel container. Typically, a small 8 fl oz flask (0.95 oz) is just the right amount for a weekend trip. The downsides to this system are its controllability and weight (ironically). Once the stove is lit, the flame is nearly invisible (especially in bright conditions) and will persist until the fuel is spent. In a dry environment where a human-caused forest fire is a real danger, this type of stove is an irresponsible choice since there is no way to shut off the flame. In addition, while this system tends to be lighter for short trips, the relatively low energy density of the fuel becomes the limiting factor for extended trips. Larger (heavier) fuel containers must be carried, and the weight of the fuel begins to offset the savings presented by the stove itself. Below are the stats for this system.
Stove Wt: 0.78 oz (incl stove and windscreen)
Fuel Container Wt: 1.1 oz (16 fl oz Smart water bottle)
Fuel Container Capacity: 16 fl oz
Fuel per Meal: 1.8 fl oz
A "jet stove" and pressurized fuel canister is likely the most common backpacking cooking system. It is safer and easier to use than an alcohol stove system, and is generally lightweight. Because the fuel and fuel container are relatively heavy, it is often overshadowed by an alcohol-based cooking system for shorter weekend trips. However, once the trip length creeps upwards of 5 days, the energy density of the pressurized fuel begins to offset the weight of its container and it becomes the lighter choice. The other benefit of a jet stove system is the ability to positively shut off the flame and fuel source. Below are the stats for this system.
Stove Wt: 3.5 oz (incl. stove and bag)
Fuel Container Wt: 4.2 oz (110g pressurized canister)
Fuel Container Capacity: 3.9 oz
Fuel per Meal: 0.32 oz
The static factors when comparing weights of cooking systems are the stove (plus accessories like carrying bag, windscreen, etc.) and the fuel container (not the fuel itself). One can think of these as "overhead." They must be carried regardless of the trip length. The dynamic factor is the amount of fuel carried, which depends on the trip length. The alcohol-based system has the benefit of flexibility in the amount of fuel carried. On a one night trip, you may only use 15% of the fuel in a jet stove container. However, you still must carry the entire 4.2 oz of the canister because the fuel is pressurized and cannot be repacked into smaller containers. On the same trip, using an alcohol stove, I would only need to carry 1.8 fl oz of fuel, meaning I could downsize my fuel container to something that only weighs 0.7 oz. The comparison table for this trip is below.
As you can see, the fuel container for the alcohol system is able to be scaled down to fit the length of the trip. In contrast, the jet system requires you to carry the excess capacity. In this case, the alcohol system weighs less than half of the jet system.
Also evident in the table are the various other factors which influence the overall weight of the cooking system. Starting from the top, The static weights (stove and fuel container) are listed. Following that, the total and daily mileage of the trip is listed. From this, the total trip length (in days) is calculated. The next input is meals/day. This is anywhere from 0.5 (cooked dinner every other night) to 3.0 (cooked breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day). Total number of meals for the trip is then acquired. The final input is the amount of fuel required per meal. From this, we can calculate the total amount of fuel and therefore the number/size of fuel container(s) needed. The total weight is then simply STOVE + FUEL CONTAINER(S) + FUEL.
In the next example, the longest resupply stint I will face on the trail (105 miles) is modeled. On the alcohol side, you will notice the changes include: alcohol fuel container weight (changed from small 2 oz bottle to a 16 oz water bottle), miles, and meals/day (assumed cooked breakfasts every other day). This table paints clear picture of the downsides of an alcohol-based system. The fuel simply contains much less energy per oz than the pressurized canister.
From this data, we can plot a chart of the overall cook system weight (vertical axis) as a function of trip duration (horizontal axis). This applies the same parameters (miles/day, meals per day, etc.) to both the jet and alcohol systems while varying the trip length. The point at which the 2 lines cross is the trip distance where the 2 systems would weigh the same. Any shorter and the alcohol system is lighter. Any further and the jet system is lighter. Also of note are the steep jumps that occur at mile 120 for the alcohol system and mile 160 for the jet system. These are the points at which an extra (or larger) fuel container would need to be carried.
