Mystery Ranch Backpacks equals Dana Design quality?

[Jeffrey Kuchera]

These packs rock balls! They are made for durability and hauling heavy loads in comfort. They are a bit on the heavy side though. If you want something you can haul your gear and a case of beer in comfortably which is also bombproof… cheers you have found your pack.

[David Lewis]

James wrote: “I just enjoy walking in the woods, and if my lightweight gear makes it more enjoyable, good for me!”

Amen. I’m the same. I’m not much for camping… but I’ve always LOVED walking in the woods. So when I got into backpacking at first… I thought… this SUCKS… because the 40+ pound pack completely ruined the part of being outdoors that I love so much… walking in the woods! So now I can walk in comfort as long as I want… sun up to sun down if I want… and I just make camp so I can get some hot food into me and some sleep so I can do it again the next day :)

As for the blog… it’s so over the top as to be almost ridiculous. No point in addressing it.

[Sunny Waller]

I remember my first love…a Dana Design Terraplane..I tried it on in the outfitters store and was hooked!!! It was awesome. It did make a 50 pound load feel like 20. It was so easy to pack. I was amazed. At that moment I became a gear addict. I must confess I got a huge rush from hauling a heavy load over the mountains in that backpack. AND I especially remember the flack I got from all the vetran backpackers when I showed up on the trail with an INTERNAL FRAME backpack :)..they loved it because now they could haul even more stuff. Unfortunatly I cannot do that anymore. A collision with a drunk driver has left me with wire feet, artificial achillies tendons and permanent spinal cord damage. I still love the outdoors and am still a gear addict (there is no cure) Lightweight gear has gotten me back on the trail..now I get that rush from just getting over the mountain. I am still thrilled when I discover cool gear that helps me get there. There is a purpose and place for both old school and ultralight backpacking. HYOH. I am just happy to be OUT THERE. happy trails everyone.

[Scott Ashdown]

Well, I went and looked at Hardcores Blogg, what a joke! He freely admits that it’s only within the last 6 months that he got back into backpacking after a FIFEEN YEAR hiatus. Who is he to be criticising everyone on these forums for lightening their loads & communicating with those with similar interests.

He claims he is 37 years old and started backpacking when he was a kid. Well, when you put the two together, it looks like he jacked it all in and lost interest when he was about 22.

Well, i’ve never lost interest in the outdoors or backpacking for that matter and don’t need ‘Hardcore’ basically comletely disregarding everyones right to take part in a lawful interests / activities in the way they deem best. This guy is abusive and full of his own fifteen year old, out of date, bravado.

He has been posting items in other forums under the name of hardcorebackpacker37, basically directing people back to his own Blogg.

Blah Blah Blah, whatever Hardcore! Save your energy, the enlightened are not interested. Yawn!

[kevin davidson]

Hardcore has left the building. Please not to troll the troll.

[Steven Hanlon]

i read this entire thread and feel like i’ve carried a 50 pound pack up Mt. Whitney.

is there a lightweight way to read these threads ;)

-Steve

[Jordan Hurder]

that guy is so clearly a wimp in a hardcore backpacker’s disguise. and i shoudl know: i put tacks in the bottom of my shoes, wrap my shoulder and hipbelt straps with sandpaper, and i hike shirtless. i only drink vinegar on the trail, and i carry sharp rocks instead of a sleeping pad. it reminds me how much of a man i am.

[Christopher Plesko]

Jordan that post has me dying laughing :D

[Richard Lyon]

I have used a Mystery Ranch BDSB (Dana’s biggest and heaviest) often and it’s nothing short of phenomenal for big loads – in my view worth the extra weight. Mystery Ranch will never win any points with ultralighters; it’s not trying to do so. For weight transfer and stability, and a bombproof pack, Mystery Ranch can’t be beat. By the way, I also use a Mystery Ranch Mountain Monkey for skiing and it’s great too (even though made offshore).

[David Corbin]

To Richard Lyon: In your experience using the BDSB, how did it compare to other similarly-sized internal or external packs?

[Kevin Sawchuk]

Richard,

I have an old and little used Dana Astralplane. It weighs around 7# and carries a heavy load reasonably well. The hip belt is a little beefy and stiff. It dug into my hip on a trip and affected a small nerve on my outer leg. It limits my stride length.

Currently I use the Astralplane rarely (even for 7d ski trips) and prefer an external frame (North Face back magic–no longer made) pack for heavy family trips. I agree that for the weight an external frame pack is more comfortable and carries weight better. However for serious cross country and skiing it will shift and throw off my balance.

I really do find that lightweight backpacking is more comfortable and allows me to cover more mileage. I’m not opposed to a bit of suffering (see my article about fastpacking the JMT in under 4 days or an upcoming one about backpacking Steve Roper’s “Sierra High Route” in 8 days) but I’d rather suffer by moving faster than fighting a heavy pack.

My lightest packs wear out in a year or two (I spend 30-40 days on backpacking/multiday ski trips each year) but the light weight and flexibility are worth the poorer durability. New materials such as spectra or grid dyneema (silnylon really wears quickly) are more durable.

Even on a 9 day trip, I can usually start with under 30# including food and water.

Everyone is entitled to their own way of enjoying the backcountry. Pick what works for you and discard the rest. With your light sleeping bag and tarp you’re already a pretty lightweight backpacker.

[David Corbin]

There may be circumstances where backpackers who prefer to practice ultralight hiking end up lugging a heavy and bulky load. One example may be where someone is on a long trip without the possibility of food re-supply. Or where someone is carrying gear for less able family members. Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider using a heavy pack, if such a pack provides for exceptional load carrying comfort. The Mystery Ranch and Dana Design (now Marmot) both have an excellent reputation in this regard.

A number of Dana Gleason’s Mystery Ranch internal frame packs share some of the characteristics of the Loadmaster series of external frame packs he designed when he owned Dana Design. For example, the Mystery Ranch BDSB and its civilian counterparts, the G-7000 and the smaller G-6000 internal frame packs, feature a frame and a hipbelt design in which the load is transferred, in part, to the sides of the hips. See the explanation of the Lumbar Wrap at the link below. Similarly, the Loadmaster series featured “Magic Wands,” which were fiberglass rods which helped transfer the load to the side of the hipbelt.

Mystery Ranch Lumbar Wrap
http://tinyurl.com/p7ahz

Dana Designs Loadmaster series external frame packs:

Shortbed http://tinyurl.com/jlxjz
Longbed http://tinyurl.com/kgs67
Terraframe http://tinyurl.com/hysvx

QUESTION: Is there anyone here who has tried any of the Loadmaster packs, and if so, did they also try the Mystery Ranch G series packs, and if so, how did they compare?

I am also appending below a commentary by “J. Brent” on the merits of external frames, because I conclude from what he wrote that external frames are better for carrying heavy loads on trails built on mild terrain.
==================================
J. BRENT WROTE:

For the loads that most people carry, the choice really comes down to whether you like how an external carries as compared to an internal. Back in mid ’80’s I started using internals exclusively because I was interested in experimenting with the type and because their suspension systems had finally improved to the point that they rivaled external frames for medium loads. After nearly a decade, Gregory introduced a new external frame and I bought one. The first time I carried it with a real load, I was shocked at the difference between it and the internals I’d gotten used to.

When properly fitted, internals put about 75% of the weight on your hips, while the large muscles of the chest and the shoulders carry the remaining 25%. When properly fitted, externals put about 95% of the weight on the hips, and the remaining 5% is borne by the chest and shoulders. That 20% on the hips makes a huge difference in how the pack feels and for some; it may be hard to get used to. There are also some who simply don’t like that weight distribution.

You may find that you like how internals carry and distribute weight better than externals. You may find that you like the better balance of an internal or that you don’t notice the forward lean of internals. You may not like the fact that you can’t bend forward at the waist with an external because you’re locked to a rigid frame. You’ll never know any of this until you gain some practical experience carrying both types.

As for me, if I were carrying the kind of weight consistent with the cubic inch capacity of the Astralplane or the G7000, I would rather have an external. This is what they excel at. They own this territory. For mountaineering or backcountry skiing internals offer the best proportion of balance and flexibility while providing good weight transfer and load control. But even packs like the Astralplane and the G7000 cannot match the support of an external if the packs are used for backpacking on trails.

Just think of it this way – with an internal, you have a fabric bag stiffened on one side with a plastic sheet, a pair of flat aluminum bars and perhaps some auxiliary fiberglass or carbon fiber rods – all working together in order to not only transfer the pack load to your hips, but to control that load and to prevent it from sagging away from your back.

With an external, you have the load placed in a bag, which is then suspended from a rectangle of aircraft aluminum, which encircles the perimeter of the packbag. The load is HANGING from that large aluminum frame. That same frame has the bag attached to one side and the suspension system, that serves as the interface between the load and you, attached to the other. If the bag is properly packed, so that the contents cannot shift away from the body, it would be otherwise impossible for the load to shift away from the frame. It CAN’T. The load is SUSPENDED from the frame. And the wearer is firmly attached to the frame. No sag, no shift, nothing but total control over the load.

* * * *

Nevertheless, let me clarify what I said:

When wearing an internal frame you can constantly adjust how the pack rides by loosening or tightening either the hip stabilizer straps or the load lifter straps. Other packs, such as Danas, may also have additional straps that will affect how the load feels or how the weight in the pack is transferred. Once you’ve gotten used to wearing an internal, you make these adjustments while on the move – almost unconsciously. These little adjustments serve to shift the weight transfer of the pack to either the hips or the chest muscles/shoulders, and will dramatically affect how the load will feel to you.

You can also, by adjusting these straps make the packbag sag on the hips, placing a lot of weight on the shoulders or by slackening the load lifters, make the packbag tilt away from the upper back, relieving the shoulders from virtually all the weight (but not the chest unless you disconnect the sternum strap), which will also make the pack loose and unstable. You can also overtighten the load lifters to that the shoulder straps literally rise off the shoulders, but at the same time, place pressure on the chest and clavicle. In general, folks rarely do any of these adjustments for long, if at all, because the pack rides poorly and/or it causes discomfort.

Now – when comparing internals to externals with similar features (both packs have load lifters, hip stabilizers, the Kelty 50th Anniversary had little springs that mimicked the fiberglass “active suspension” rods of the old Dana Loadmaster packs), you have to start somewhere. If both packs are adjusted the same, with the hip stabilizers pulled snug to the waistbelt and the load lifter straps snugged up firmly but not too tight, the way the average person would begin their hike at the roadhead, the weight transfer between the two types will be noticeably different. Noticeably more of the weight will be borne by the hips of the external frame wearer. The weight distribution I mentioned before is approximately how each type will distribute the weight.

* * * *

When an internal frame pack is adjusted as above, with the sternum strap connected, as it should be, most of the remaining weight that would be carried by the shoulders, is shifted to the large chest muscles. Therefore, only a small percentage of the weight is transferred to the shoulders. No one will get sore, red shoulders, and should be able to slip a finger under any shoulder strap, that has been adjusted like that.

Why did internal frame makers pioneer things such as hip stabilizer straps, load lifters and sternum straps when these devices had not been used on externals before their development? Because the early internal frames required this kind of engineering to offset the fact that they put too much weight on the shoulders as compared to the then dominant external frame. Because internal frames distribute the weight so very differently than externals. Note that it wasn’t until internal frames evolved to feature such innovations that they were accepted and not until they had undergone some fine-tuning, that they began to slowly replace externals. Why? Because internals were not capable of carrying external sized loads without shoulder discomfort and/or could not control the load like an external – until these things were conceived.

* * * *
There is no question that the Dana Loadmaster external frame carries heavy weights better than the 50th Anniversary or any other external frame for that matter. When the fiberglass rods are tensioned, the load is literally lifted UP, eliminating any sag whatsoever. It makes the load feel twenty pounds lighter. The downside is that the overall weight of the pack is MUCH greater than the 50th Anniversary and if you aren’t going to carry massive loads, the benefit of the rods may not offset the weight of the pack.

Terraframes are great packs but don’t have the organization features that endear most external frame lovers to the type. The Terraframe package is after all, the internal frame bag of a Dana Terrraplane mounted on an external frame. I’ve owned both a Longbed and a Shortbed and found that the Longbed was just way too big for my needs. It wasn’t as versatile as the Shortbed, which could work well for a short trip by carrying the sleeping bag in the lower compartment rather than strapped underneath BUT when the sleeping bag is underneath the bag is quite large.

* * * *
Either the Dana or Kelty packs should do you proud. The Dana packframe is superb and bulletproof. No doubt, any Dana Loadmaster will feel nearly the same when equally loaded. The only difference would be how the Longbed distributes the weight. It features a deep pocket, mounted away from the body on the sleeping bag compartment, which requires one to be a careful packer. It the lower part of the bag isn’t loaded correctly, the weight will not be close to the body as it should be. Though the Kelty’s Levitators make a real difference when carrying 35 pounds and up, the Dana’s fiberglass (as far as I know they were always fiberglass) rods will subdue even an 80-pound load – if you can carry it. The benefits of the Dana can really be seen at loads greater than 50 pounds.

The Longbed definitely has more capacity than the Shortbed because it features that lower deep pocket on the outside of the sleeping bag compartment. Still, you’re right that the main difference is how the sleeping bag is carried. The differences between the Longbed and the Terraframe are greater. The contoured bag design of the Terraframe doesn’t offer the same amount of storage space as the Longbed. Think of the internal shape of the Longbed’s main bag, side pockets and back pockets as being square or rectangular boxes, whereas the Terraframe’s internal bag and pocket shapes are curved and contoured and more organic in nature. They just hold less. Still, the Terraframe will provide you with enough capacity to never seem too small. The only exception is the lower sleeping bag compartment. It’s “internal frame” pack sized and was designed to carry a good goosedown or high-performance synthetic mummy bag. It’ll be too small for large synthetic bags or really big “car camping” rectangular bags..

[Author]

Posts