Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report – Part 1A: Testing Overview and List of Packs Tested

[Addie Bedford]

Companion forum thread to:

Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report – Part 1A: Testing Overview and List of Packs Tested

[Gerry B.]

Regarding the American market's preference for outside pockets,besides access to water bottles, this may be in part due to our climate, especially in the eastern and southern United States where rainfall is plentiful. I never put my shelter inside my pack, preferring to put it in an outside pocket because it (the shelter) is more often than not, WET.

[David Ure]

"> How about a pack like the Osprey Talon 44

44 L – too small.

Cheers"

Roger, too small because of the trend by manufacturers to overstate pack volumes? Several of the packs listed appear to be under 50L in reality. Is this what you are finding?

I have always felt that Granite Gear packs are much smaller than claimed. It appears this is the case.

[WV Hiker]

Just a comment about mixed measurements. It's usually a good idea to keep units the same. In the first table we have cubic centimeters (even though liters are how packs are usually listed) converted to cubic inches. That's all fine but in the summary of that table it's now liters converted to cubic feet. Keep the measurements consistent. This is bad editing. No one talks about cubic feet in relation to packs. BTW, 1.43 cubic feet is 2,471 cubic inches. This should be fixed.

[WV Hiker]

As another poster mentioned the Deuter AirContact Zero 60+10 fits your criteria with a weight of 3 lb 1 oz and a volume of 3650 ci. The Jansport Ascent Regular also fits with a weight of 3 lb 1 oz and a volume of 3203 ci.

[Jim Cowdery]

Roger; thanks for being a lightning rod and undertaking this task. It’s great to see someone establishing comparison criteria for such a complex task.

I am curious how many readers use the packs listed (or similar packs). If they do use these packs, how are they used? Are they used for multi-day trips with or without resupply? Are they used for winter trips or three season trips? Are they used for quick overnights?

I still use my Gregory Z-pack but only for a winter trip where extra gear is needed. My weights on these trips are generally over 30 lbs because of the heavier gear needed. For my three season trips and multi-day trips I use my SMD with stays. For the two to three day it has been my SMD but I plan on using my recently completed MYOG frameless pack.

Does BPL have the ability to take a reader poll? I think this would be a great companion to this article and in sharing the experiences of the BPL readers.

[CW]

I use my Ohm for anything more than a day hike. That includes 4 seasons and trips from overnighters to 5+ nights. I really need a smaller pack for 3-season outings but I'm trying to keep my clutter down and the Ohm has good compression.

[nanook ofthenorth]

Rodger the NWD Cilogear packs fit your test criteria at 3lb 5oz and 60L — it really is too bad that they were not included in the review, or that the normal packs were not tested as a proxy

[WV Hiker]

Roger,

I believe there is a mistake in the table as regards the Lowe Alpine Nanon 50:60. Lowe, on their UK site lists the volume as 50lt+10lt extension=60lt. This makes sense based on the name. They however screw up their conversion and say that it is 4000+600cu.ins when in reality it is more like 3000+600 cu ins. (actually 3051 ci + 610 ci for 3661 ci.). I wonder if the 10 liter extension counts the hip belt pockets, stretchable side pocket and back side pocket. Shouldn't these "2 size packs" really be based on their initial size and not the extended size since we don't really know what that means? If that's the case then the Nanon is well within it's listed size. I think part of the problem with Lowe Alpine is their US website is a subset of their international one and doesn't seem to be really put together all that well.

[CW]

Hmm…The NWD 60 Worksack is 3 lb 8 oz according to the site. It's also $750 which is likely too steep for the majority of BPL members/readers. Just pointing that out, not saying it shouldn't be reviewed because it's very expensive.

[Frank Steele]

I thought this was BPL. A 45 oz tent and a 45 oz sleeping bag?

As far as the question of who still uses a internal frame pack? I use an Osprey Exos. I tried several frameless packs and they just were not as comfortable as the Exos.

[nanook ofthenorth]

No, but I think its worthwhile reviewing them, even if you were substitute the normal 60L as a stand-in for the NWD. I personally wonder how the packs would stack up (esp b/c the trail weight is so variable for them) and am disappointed that BPL did not include them in the review. Although I understand BPL not wanting to spend $750 on a pack – I think its a mistake not to include the Cilogear packs – they clearly meet the criteria of the review and have generated a lot of interest.

[Michael L]

You can't make everybody happy all of the time.

Especially in this very interesting topic. I would have preferred more packs in the GG Gorilla, ULA Ohm range myself. But I understand that they had to draw the line somewhere to get this done in a reasonable timeframe.

Interested in reading the rest of the market report!

[David Ure]

ClioGear makes climbing specific packs, which based on the initial criteria, would not fit in well with the group.

[Einstein X]

Very interesting Roger, I'm looking forward to reading the next articles in the series.

Eins

[Rakesh Malik]

Yowsa. They're in the same league, price-wise, as McHale.

Unless, of course, you get a McHale in full Dyneema… which is worth it if you carry stuff over and above the survival gear, like a view camera.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

The OHM is omitted, but the Circuit isn't. Yet they employ the same carbon hoop."

The Circuit has the same hoop as the Ohm but it also has an additional 'dense internal foam frame'. That's probably why they slotted the Circuit into this review and the Ohm will likely be in the 'frameless with stays' review.

[David Ure]

I forgot about the backpad. My 2007 version of the Circuit doesn't. But then it weighs 31oz as well.

[Lynn Tramper]

I think it's unreasonable to expect BPL to review every single pack on the market that fits the review criteria. aside from cost and availability, it would be a mammoth undertaking. As for gear not available in USA, I would argue that the US can do like the rest of the world does with US made gear…import it at a high postage cost. If lack of availability were a criteria, there are very few packs in tin the review hat I could buy locally, but I still have owned some of them.

RE: hydration
I know the argument well, and suffered under this premise for many years with a pocket-less MacPac Ascent. Comfy pack, but a PITA to get to stuff quickly without risking rain getting into your gear, and lack of outer pockets meant I only drank every few hours or when I crossed a creek. For over a decade I also suffered bad migraines when I went hiking, until a sports doctor friend mentioned I might try more frequent and larger volumes of water. I got a bladder and never looked back. No more migraines. So YMMV. I'll take a hydration pocket at the very least. This is why I couldn't cope with Aarn packs. Speaking of which, the Aarn Featherlite Freedom has a minimum trail weight of 1.2-1.3kg and claimed 50-55 litre volume…

[nanook ofthenorth]

Hi David – you wrote "ClioGear makes climbing specific packs, which based on the initial criteria, would not fit in well with the group."

Cruk (uk) specifically makes climbing packs which were included in the review. Thats not a reason to exclude the Cilos

Considering that the review was for packs for "For walkers going on longer trips, or going up in the mountains where the weather is more variable and requires more gear for safety, a slightly larger pack is needed." My point is that Cilogear packs should have been included.

I for one would like to see a bit more mountain focus on gear for the AB/BC Rockies. I've heard so much about these packs, been curious about them, but have been wanting to read a really good independent review on them.
Its too bad BPL did not include the Cilogeat packs despite them clearly matching the review critera, as well as all the publicity on the net about them.

Anyways, I dont care too much about it – but I'd like to see them reviewed and indexed into this series. Seems like their exclusion was an oversight.

[Cas Berentsen]

(Since this will be my first post – nice to meet you!)

Nice comparison, curious to the results of the field test

I did some "shop testing" of the Lowe Alpine Nanon & the Osprey Exos 58. Being tall (over 6'3") with a tall backbone I needed the largest versions. I loaded both with 15kg of sand bags and walked in the shop for approximately half an hour. For the Exos 15kg this appeared to be above its load limit as the lower end of the pack starts hanging. Unfortunately, the hipbelt of the Nanon appeared to be too wide for me.

I actually want(ed) the Gossammer Mariposa but since (this year) my start weight would be over 15kg I decided to skip this till more of my gear will be in line with that pack.

Eventually I ordered the Lightwave Ultrahike because of the design of its hip belt. Walking for 20 days in the Pyrenees with a weight between 12 and 18 kg I absolutely didn't regret my choice. For me that pack is very comfortable and, for my slim hips, the hip belt is simply superb. The only minor complaint I have is that the foam used at the "harness-face" is slightly warm.
( Sofar I always carry the water bladder in one of the outer pockets )

[David Chenault]

Lynn, I agree. Drinking water at 2 hour intervals and backpacking at anything other than a truly tepid pace in cool weather means you will become dehydrated. A non-negotiable physiological reality.

Relevant because good water access, in whatever form it takes, it central to a decent backpack.

[Lynn Tramper]

" I loaded both with 15kg of sand bags and walked in the shop for approximately half an hour. For the Exos 15kg this appeared to be above its load limit as the lower end of the pack starts hanging. "

Sand bag testing is inherently flawed in this respect. All the weight end up concentrated at the bottom of the back, exaggerating the downwards pull. When I shop test a pack, I actually take my gear in with me and load it up with a representative heavy-ish load, distributed in a way to keep the centre of gravity as close to my back as possible.

[Cas Berentsen]

Sorry, I actually meant sand bag loading in combination with fluffy plastics bags. Weight of sand was concentrated in middle against back.

[David Ure]

"Cruk (uk) specifically makes climbing packs which were included in the review. Thats not a reason to exclude the Cilos"

I completely missed that Robert! Thanks.

[Author]

Posts