Is the Ultralight movement hurting gear development?

[Macchina]

There has been a shift towards ultralight trend that has been progressing since I got into backpacking. The shaving of ounces has touched every last piece of gear on sites like REI, Moosejaw, and other pure backpacking outfitters. With very few exceptions, you get a mixed bag with an ultralight piece of gear: Ridiculous light weight at the cost of durability and increased price. There is some kind of weird accepted fact going on here that the lighter a company makes something, the more they can charge. I work in machine design and deal with material cost and product design all day long: When you make something lighter AND smaller you generally make it weaker and for less money. If you can then charge more for it AND your customers expect less durability then you've managed to pull of some awesome marketing!

The Ultralight movement started out with good intentions: You really can enjoy the outdoors more when you are carrying a 15 lbs. bag instead of a 40 lbs. bag. Some innovations have far more weight saving benefits than detractors (MSR Pocket Rocket). But I feel this movement is leading the gear industry in a direction that has allowed them to "cheapen" their gear and the customer is fine with it. Buying gear is fun! And when it wears out after a season, you get the privilege of buying more of it Sure ounces add up, but let's not forget that it is the customer who holds the power to dictate how gear is designed through our purchases.

I feel this "Ultralight" trend may just be the spin the outdoors gear companies have put on the universal trend of cheapening products. Just like how the term "Green" is now slapped on half the products that material thickness was simply reduced to near failing levels on (i.e. bottled water that collapses when you open it). Food quantities have also been silently creeping down while the producer maintains the same product pricing and labeling.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

And then there is Duluth Pack.

 

[dd61999]

I like the ultralight concept. It brings "simplicity" back to the outdoors. Which after all is the major attraction to being outside. I already have a "heavy load" during work. Packing light helps me unwind, move faster, be more comfortable, go further, and have less fatigue

By the way you can go light without compromising your gear. If anything you land up buying better gear. For Example I used to carry a mini maglite flashlight plus several spare batteries. I now carry an ARC AAA with just one spare battery. The ARC is much smaller, much brighter, and batteries run forever. It even works on my dead batteries from my TV remote! Plus the thing has a history of being bombproof, even more so than maglites!

 

[Macchina]

A lot of Ultralight gear is very nice and ingenuous in ways that make you say: "That makes sense, I didn't every need that part that weighs a pound." However, some manufactures have used the Ultralight banner to sell cheaper made gear at inflated prices and pass off the decreased functionality as "innovative".
Some examples of what I mean by OVER-Ultralight:

Winter Mummy bags without hoods (note, they sell hoods separate for when you realize a hoodless 0 degree mummy bag is a bad idea).

Stoves with plastic around the heating element (Yup, there are reviews where people melted the base when it was windy)

$350 non-free standing tarp with two poles included and the option to buy a third...

 

[tknife]

I think the concept of ultralight goes hand in hand with some of the primitive ways we enjoy as well. If you look at the way Ray Jardine went about it, he did more with less and also relied on the natural resources around him as he trekked and set up his camps. There are many products in the "ultralight" category that I wouldn't bother with, but there are also some great innovations. I'm also not a long distance backpacker, but I can see blending certain gear in with rugged and heavier stuff.

 

[Macchina]

By the way you can go light without compromising your gear. If anything you land up buying better gear. For Example I used to carry a mini maglite flashlight plus several spare batteries. I now carry an ARC AAA with just one spare battery. The ARC is much smaller, much brighter, and batteries run forever. It even works on my dead batteries from my TV remote! Plus the thing has a history of being bombproof, even more so than maglites!

This is an excellent example of how shrinking electronics and improved materials have allowed us to get more for less: performance and durability go up, cost and weight go down! I'm not saying the Ultralight movement is all bad, when applied with the customers needs in mind, it's usually very good. I agree a lighter load is great. My beef is that outfitters are using Ultralight as a shield for cheapening products then charging more for them. I hate it when I go to replace some equipment with the "new and updated" (and more expensive) model only to find key components replaced by plastic do-dads.

 

[squishware]

I think a lot of people buy expensive gear and don't use it. The fun is in researching and purchasing for some.

 

[stingray4540]

I would have to completely disagree with you on this one. If anything, I think the "ultralight" movement has helped gear development.
If it wasn't for the desire to carry less weight, everyone would still be carrying around 60lbs. on and external frame pack.
Sure there will be times when a company will push things too far, and create a product that doesn't last, but those things generally don't catch on.

I would also disagree with lighter equals less durable. I don't think a single item of backpacking gear I own has worn out over the last 2 years...

Regarding price: Backpacking gear isn't Machine design. A lot of the time, the higher price is due to high material cost, which is due to the high cost of research to come up with this stuff. Trying to make a steel part lighter by removing material in low stress areas is different than creating a completely new material. Look into cuben fiber and some of the other new materials that are being used.

Lastly, if you think REI is at the forefront of light weight backpacking, you haven't been doing much gear research. Google, Ray Jardine, MLD (mountain laurel designs), SMD (six moon designs), and start reading some of the ultralight backpacking forums.

 

[stingray4540]

Stoves with plastic around the heating element (Yup, there are reviews where people melted the base when it was windy)
[/URL]

It's funny that that system is even considered light weight. It is a super popular system, but is super heavy, especially if you are only boiling water...

I hate it when I go to replace some equipment with the "new and updated" (and more expensive) model only to find key components replaced by plastic do-dads.

I can however completely agree with you on that point!

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

It's funny that that system is even considered light weight. It is a super popular system, but is super heavy, especially if you are only boiling water...

My ultra-light water boiling system is my stainless water bottle, a Bic lighter, and a bunch of sticks I just pick off the ground. :thumbup:

 

[hollowdweller]

I have been backpacking for 25 years.

In that time I think the gear has gotten both lighter and more durable.

The one category of gear I feel has not gotten more durable is shoes/boots.

A lot of the socks they make these days are way superior to the ragg socks used to be worn.

The new synthetic light clothing seems to last longer than the cotton or some wool I used to have that would come apart at the stitching.

I can't tell you how many mini mag lights we went thru camping as was mentioned and the new lighter headlamps last for years.

 

[hollowdweller]

Oh and my original backpacking stove, a coleman peak 1 was HEAVY. I had to repair it several times.

In contrast a pepsi can stove is light, no parts to malfunction and cheap too!:thumbup:

 

[Macchina]

I would have to completely disagree with you on this one. If anything, I think the "ultralight" movement has helped gear development.
If it wasn't for the desire to carry less weight, everyone would still be carrying around 60lbs. on and external frame pack.
Sure there will be times when a company will push things too far, and create a product that doesn't last, but those things generally don't catch on.

I agree, my point is the improper use of the Ultralight trend to lighten (cheapen) products in ways that reduces weight while also reducing functionality and durability. This is usually done by replacing essential components with easier to manufacture plastic parts and branding the product as "updated".

I would also disagree with lighter equals less durable. I don't think a single item of backpacking gear I own has worn out over the last 2 years...

Then you've purchased wisely and thus you have contributed positively to the market!

Regarding price: Backpacking gear isn't Machine design. A lot of the time, the higher price is due to high material cost, which is due to the high cost of research to come up with this stuff. Trying to make a steel part lighter by removing material in low stress areas is different than creating a completely new material. Look into cuben fiber and some of the other new materials that are being used.

In Machine design (building the machines that make the products we use), we deal heavily with production vs. material cost. Production costs (especially using USA labor) far outweigh material cost in anything that is considered ultralight (that's the point). Take for example a titanium pot. Titanium is going to be one of the most costly metals to purchase raw as well as manufacture. When you reduce weight, you decrease the amount of material used as well as the number of progressive stampings you would need to form the part (thicker parts require many more progressions). 6Al-4V titanium cost about $0.65 per 100g in bulk sheet (what pots are made out of), 304 stainless cost about $0.40 per 100g in bulk sheet. When you compare densities of the materials, the prices are actually a lot closer. Stainless steel requires a post-stamping polish operation while titanium gets a cheaper sand or bead blast operation. Stamping costs are going to be somewhat similar with titanium costing a bit more. Bottom line: titanium is cool right now so it cost more.

Cuben Fiber is very cool stuff and represents exactly the route Ultralight Gear development should be taking. Our manufacturing and material property abilities improve every day, it's awesome when that technology is applied to outdoor gear I can use (also in this category: Gore-Tex, 7005 Al Alloy, 6Al-4V Titanium, E-Vent, About every Cordura fabric made, etc.). We advance through development of new techniques and technologies, not through the reduction of tried and true technologies.

I understand we are paying for research, but on that same note, don't forget we are also paying heavily for the advertising we all lick up.

Lastly, if you think REI is at the forefront of light weight backpacking, you haven't been doing much gear research. Google, Ray Jardine, MLD (mountain laurel designs), SMD (six moon designs), and start reading some of the ultralight backpacking forums.

I agree, my point was that a lot of mainstream backpacking gear has (incorrectly) used the Ultralight movement to their advantage. This is where the meat of the term "Ultralight" is used to excuse a cheapening of a product (see the plastic JetBoil pot a couple posts up). True Ultralighters do it right, because the goal there is primarily an Ultralight load, not slapping a plastic part on a piece of metal and calling it Ultralight.

 

[Shotgun]

I don't see ultra light gear as being bad for gear developement. Nor do I think all ul gear is more expensive then "regular" gear. Back packs and shelters are actually cheaper for the most part. Not to mention ul gear like pepsi can stoves or quilts that you can make yourself. Try making a pocket rocket. Clothing is usually more expensive but you're also dealing with better/newer fabrics. Companies are going to make all products as cheaply as possible. I don't think it's just the ul stuff.

Edit: Also, who said jetboils are ul? They're not even near ul.

 

[dd61999]

Regardless if the gear is label ultralight or not. The outdoors gear market is plagued with low quality junk. Just look at the outdoor camping aisle in walmart or target.

I think one reason Internet forums are popular is to avoid the Junk that is out there on the market.

If I had the forums in the early 90's when I was souping up my mustang to go faster, I would have saved thousands and thousands of dollars and hours if not days or weeks of labor.

 

[Macchina]

I fear the point of this thread is being misunderstood. Many improvements in gear technology has resulted in lighter gear that works better, is lighter, and comes at a cheaper price to the consumer. The point of my thread is manufacturers using the Ultralight trend to sell cheaper gear for more money or lightening the usefulness out of a product. I have on several occasions purchased gear to replace well made but worn out gear, only to find the new is not the same quality as the old, and it cost more because it was advertised as lighter weight. One example is the pump on MSR gas stoves. It used to be made of aluminum, now it is injection molded plastic which MSR claims to be lighter and better. I have owned the plastic version for a few years now and it's showing a lot more wear than the 15 year old aluminum one that my uncle owns.

There are typically two ways manufacturers make something lighter:
1. Reduce material = reduce weight. This is a mixed bag. Most of the time a backpacking item was designed with weight in mind the first time. When you take away material without changing structure, you reduce strength, simple as that.
2. Change Materials. In some cases this is very good; if the material is stronger per weight, it's a win-win (Cuben Fiber). In some cases it's not so good. Usually when a manufacturer makes a metal to plastic change, they have decided the item was overbuilt to begin with and they can get away with plastic. Sure it's lighter, but it's also weaker (unless you use a lot of plastic, in which case it's usually heavier).

 

[stingray4540]

michaelmcgo: Well it turns out we agree more than we disagree. When I read your OP, I thought you were coming from a different angle.

I think "ultralight" is helping us move in the right direction of innovation, however, with anything, there will be the companies that benefit greatly from using the term to sell there stuff to noobs that are just getting into the sport or hobby. And they usually sell there stuff at the big stores that are conveniently located and advertise "expert advice."
You see this in just about every sport, for instance I love seeing those guys/girls on a $6,000 road bike wearing $300 worth of matching Lycra, and they don't even know how to shift properly.
It's more of a byproduct of innovation I think, but there are usually enough serious participants to keep the truly innovative companies in business. Unfortunately there will always be those high volume companies to feed on the unwitting newcomers.

Good advice to any newcomer to ANY sport or hobby, especially backpacking, is don't buy it just because it says "ultralight" (or insert desirable label for your sport). When comparing Actual weights, you will be surprised that a lot of the stuff labeled as "ultralight" or that is really popular, actually isn't that light at all, compared to it's peer products. And just because it's popular, probably just means that a lot of people were sold on it by the store salesman, and since they spent a fortune, they have to convince themselves and everyone else that it's the best/lightest/fastest/etc.

 

[dd61999]

I don't think I misunderstood your thread.

Companies have to make a decision in order to compete whether it is the right move or not the consumer decides. Regardless of the Industry, some great companies of the past have evolved into not so great ones. Thanks to the Internet there are a lot more niche companies that can help consumers get what they are looking for.

 

[eomeo]

I very much appreciate the ultralight movement and industry. The cottage makers produce excellent products, although they are very expensive. With these high cost products, you tend to get great service, good quality, and support through the lifetime of the product. The cottage makers innovate and force the gorillas of the outdoor industry to get better.

As you mention, cost reductions are a necessary evil in manufacturing. Ice cream now comes in 1.5 quart tubs, and yogurt is down to 6oz cups. You will see metal parts replaced with plastic, because it still works for 4-5 years of use, and it prevents Cascade from raising the MSRP of the stove by $5. In this example, weight reductions are a side benefit of cost savings, but certainly not the driving factor.


TL-DR Cost savings drives quality reductions. Weight reductions are a side benefit.

 

[Calebklyne]

I have no issue with lighter gear being produced but I also have no issue with hauling a 50lb pack into the backcountry either. My only issue with ultralight is when I see people in the backcountry that bring a whole house worth of gear and are completely unprepared if something were to go wrong because that would be too heavy.

I personally am trying to see where I can shed some pounds with gear I don't need and I'm considering changing to a tarp from my tent this year