Oct 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm #1280660
ULA recently started offering a new version of the great Ohm pack. The change is that it comes with the Circuit/Catalyst hip belt. This belt offers a wider, more comfortable belt, and a top-and-bottom pull buckle strap. It is now also possible to change the hip belt size if one shrinks or grows. Finally, one can get a few inches of adjustability of the hip belt up or down with the Ohm 2.0
Since I had shrunk out of my large belted Ohm 1, and think the Circuit/Catalyst hipbelt is about the most comfortable anywhere, I ordered one right away. It arrived yesterday!
Here's a few pictures of the Ohm 2.0 being used as a Marmot Hydrogen stuff sack:
The front is identical to the regular Ohm.
The back shows the change – look at the lower back where the belt intersects the pack.
Here's a closer look at the belt/pack interface.
Oct 16, 2011 at 7:04 am #1791122
Thanks for posting those Stephen. Isn't the Ohm 1.0's backpanel the 210d ripstop? Looks like the 2.0's is the 70d like they use in other areas of the pack. Maybe they were trying to offset some of the weight gain of the hipbelt.
p.s. – That hipbelt looks very comfortable!
RyanOct 16, 2011 at 7:59 am #1791136
No clue on fabrics – it's certainly ripstop, but beyond that I wouldn't know.
Can you tell me how to distinguish the two?Oct 16, 2011 at 11:02 am #1791189
@ken_bennettLocale: southeastern usa
Thanks for the photos. I have an original Ohm and a Circuit, and I think I need to trade both of them for one of these. Hmmm.
EDIT: I wish there was some sort of knit wicking fabric on the back of the Ohm, I find the green ripstop very sweaty.Oct 16, 2011 at 11:14 am #1791196
I like that wicking material on my SMD pack. Ken Thompson has an original Ohm and the back panel material doesn't seem to bother him. It seems everyone is different in that regard.Oct 17, 2011 at 8:19 am #1791549
@kylemeyerLocale: Portland, OR
So does the carbon hoop still sit in pockets in the hip belt? If not, how does the pack not bunch up at the bottom under load without the aluminum stay the Circuit has? Why remove all that Dyneema X? :[Oct 17, 2011 at 11:06 am #1791609
The carbon sticks and delrin hoop are entirely inside the main bag.
The belt has very heavy hoop/loop patches front and back, same as the Contrail and Catalyst. If my loaded Catalyst hipbelt doesn't creep out of position, I doubt the one on the Ohm will go anywhere!
Lose dyneema to lose weight?Oct 17, 2011 at 11:14 am #1791610
Looks like a superb pack! Reminds me of the first generation Circuit that was 32 oz.Oct 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm #1791666
@kylemeyerLocale: Portland, OR
The Catalyst has two aluminum stays for structural rigidity along the spine… So if the belt is no longer connected to the frame, will there be worse weight transfer to the hips despite the larger belt?
I was one of the crazies that emailed ULA wanting a circuit belt on the Ohm, but this doesn't seem to be the way to do it.Oct 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm #1791719
" So if the belt is no longer connected to the frame, will there be worse weight transfer to the hips despite the larger belt?"
I have exactly the same concern since I looked at the pictures. I, too, think this is not the way to go about it. My Xmas wish is that they'd go back and look at the way Mountainsmith did it with the Ghost. That pack carried superbly with a hip belt much less beefy than that of the Circuit married to a very similar Delrin/CF stay.
Just an amateur's 2 cents.Oct 17, 2011 at 6:18 pm #1791779
I wonder if it will be possible to convert the Ohm 1 to this hip belt? The Hoop would be the issue.
The way the hip belt rides is the only thing I don't like about the pack, I think the pack carries too low. I have been trying to figure out how to modify mine for a more wrap around hip belt that raises the pack up some.Oct 17, 2011 at 6:26 pm #1791785Oct 17, 2011 at 6:34 pm #1791788
"The frame does not have to attach to the belt as long as the belt is stiff enough. I am going to take a wild guess and figure that ULA has considered this."
I dunno, David. Take a look at the pictures, above. The hipbelt wings are canted inward, suggesting the hipbelt material behind them that slides thru the slot in the pack body is not very stiff.
"I would direct you to Mchale, where the belt does not attach to the stays but is stiff enough to provide structure through the length of the belt to the main bag where the stays then take over."
I've owned 3 McHale packs down thru the years, as well as a Circuit, and I can say with considerable confidence that the Circuit hipbelt ain't no McHale.Oct 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm #1791792
The original OHM was effectively an external framed pack where the frame would have 'floated' if it had not been attached to the belt. Because the frame is now located inside (I am assuming the ends are in sleeves to hold the frame steady), this internal framed pack can do away with having the ends attached to the belt. Of course, I do not have the 2.0 version in my hands so am assuming the construction is as described above.
Someone e-mail Chris.Oct 17, 2011 at 7:53 pm #1791825
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
Eh, all this speculation and analyzing means nothing. The original 1st gen Ohm that Frankle designed worked just absolutely fine for the intended loads that it was designed to carry, the revised hipbelt change about a year ago was a nice improvement on an already great pack. I don't see the purpose of this new 2.0 change, want a beefy bear hugging hipbelt? Get a Circuit.Oct 18, 2011 at 8:24 am #1791964Oct 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm #1792180
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
Problem? No problem, just observations.
There is a delrin hoop that is attached to nothing, what's the purpose of the hoop if the hipbelt isn't mounted at that point as well? Am I missing something?
The previous design had the hipbelt attach at the sides where the delrin hoop mounted into the notch in the belt, this makes sense and carries very well.Oct 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm #1792196
"There is a delrin hoop that is attached to nothing, what's the purpose of the hoop if the hipbelt isn't mounted at that point as well? Am I missing something? "
It is mounted internally at the same level at which the belt attaches, so yes, at the same point. It does not, hoever, have to attach to the belt for proper load transfer as it would no longer be classified as an externally framed pack but instead, an internally framed pack. All internally framed packs are like this.Oct 18, 2011 at 6:53 pm #1792243
"The previous design had the hipbelt attach at the sides where the delrin hoop mounted into the notch in the belt, this makes sense and carries very well."
+1Oct 18, 2011 at 8:21 pm #1792282
This is an ultralight pack.
It is intended to be used with a CCF pad folded against the backpanel for additional support. Read the info on the ULA website if you dont understand. It has straps inside to hold it there. When you pack that CCF pad in there that way, you get incredible rigidity of the whole pack with loads up to 20-25 lb
ULA packs dont work as well with burrito style because the bottoms are not flat,you end up with a big gap under one end of the pad at the bottom.
The carbon fiber stay gives the load lifters something to pull against if you arent packed high and full, keeps the sack from collapsing so its easier to pack. If you have a 24" wide CCF pad, you wouldnt need anything else. 20" CCF pads are 4" shorter than the ht of the load lifter attachement points.
The regular OHM is good because the stay connects to hip belt wings. There will be more sagging without that definitely as there will be more relative movement between the center of the pack back and hipbelt.
The bulge where the velcro is will be a little uncomfortable. The circuit has a foam panel that covers that, unless you remove it like I did. My ohm is noticably more comfortable there without that.
The circuit has its Carbon fiber stay inside too, just like this new Ohm. THe reason for the aluminum stay is because that isnt enough. THere is just too much sag in UL packs without some kind of stay connection to the belt above ~20 lbs unless there is a good packing job with a CCF pad inside. EVA pads like the gossamer gear really "stick" tightly to the coated pack interiorOct 18, 2011 at 9:42 pm #1792316
"It is intended to be used with a CCF pad folded against the backpanel for additional support. Read the info on the ULA website if you dont understand."
Where does it say this on the website? I never used a pad with my Ohm and easily carried 25lbs in comfort (I have a Mchale LBP34 for comparison and the OHM did a great job without a CCF pad).
"The regular OHM is good because the stay connects to hip belt wings. There will be more sagging without that definitely as there will be more relative movement between the center of the pack back and hipbelt. "
Incorrect. The Circuit has the same 'floating hipbelt' and has no such 'sagging' issues that you mention. The belt on the OHM 2.0 has straps to suck the lumbar pad into the lower back and 'connect' the suspension to the belt (see picture on ULA website for Circuit).
The Circuit does NOT need the stay for any weights below 30lbs. There just isn't enough torso collapse to require it.
Regardless, most of you are not the focus for the 2.0. Stick to the 1.0 and you will be happy (misinformed, but happy).Oct 19, 2011 at 11:18 am #1792531
This morning I loaded up the Ohm 2.0 with 30 lbs (weighed) (max recommended weight) and took it for a walk up and down hills, just to see if things were as bad as some folks seem to think they might be! (Sarcasm!)
It was comfortable. Weight transfer to hips was excellent. No feeling of excess pressure on the lower back under the hipbelt. No movement of the belt upwards under 30 lbs.
Now frankly, it was not quite as comfortable with 30 lbs as my Catalyst is, but then I didn't expect it to be. I don't intend to do any trips with the Ohm with more than 20 or maybe 25 lbs – for me it's a 2 or 3 day pack. Week or more long trips will be with the Catalyst.
I really couldn't tell any difference in carry (with max weight) between the 2.0 and my old 1.0 (now sold).
I'll be interested to see some comments from other folks who actually have a 2.0.Oct 19, 2011 at 2:09 pm #1792604
@prav66Locale: By the foothills of the Colorado Rockies
I was one of the many folks who complained to Chris about the Ohm belt even after the redesign last year… it's a shortie that feels way truncated and ends where it should be giving the most weight transfer on my hips. I imagine ladies with wide hips fare even worse with that thing. Ryan Jordan and others have written about the fool-hardiness of the LW cottage industry on skimping on hipbelts for their packs when you have a small baseweight but need to occasionally carry a lot of food/water.
I know lots of folks get on fine with the regular Ohm, but I can;t imagine how… I found it inadequate as is, making me envious of the belts on my GG Gorilla (a pack I like less than the Ohm in every other respect, hipbelts aside). Anyway… my timing of request was just as 2.0 was coming out. Chris sent me one as soon as they started selling them and I've been using it the past week.
Some thoughts :
1. I love the hipbelt design and am happy that it no longer digs uncomfortably into my hips when there is weight on it and I tighten it up. On the Ohm 2.0, it feels even more agile than on the beefier Circuit (which is overkill for me for most of my needs and doesn't compress as well). The fact that it is free to move/rotate with your hips means the pack stays straight as you move or dance around… a noticeable improvement in balance in my experience. Much more so than on the regular Ohm I hardly notice the pack and am no longer feeling the belt really straining with loads above 25lbs. In short it works.
2. Weight transfer has been superior to the regular Ohm for 30lbs weight going on weekender. I too wish that the suspension is connected directly to the belt like the previous Ohm for maximum load transfer but the much more robust coverage of the new belt MORE than makes up for this loss. YVMV but for me the difference is obvious and preferable. Someday we may have someone make a pack in the sub 2lb weight category that is a true load hauler but right now the Ohm is meeting my needs.
If folks are looking at the pack to use between 25 & 30lbs loads (e.g. southwest hiking where lots of water is needed on stretches or for long hikes where food weight adds up), I'd take the Ohm 2.0 any day over the original. The ~4oz increase in weight is a pittance for the improved comfort walking all day, slash the weight of your gear elsewhere.
For true UL loads, I still prefer my 2008 ULA Conduit which has less stiff shoulder straps and a beefier hipbelt than the regular Ohm.
P.S. : The perfect pack for me would combine the regular features of the Ohm, the roll-top and hipbelts of the old Conduit (which were long enough), a stiff aluminum hoop curved to the back (like what SMD uses) but connected directly to the hipbelts for maximum load transfer, a light mesh at the back for ventilation (like Osprey packs) and still weight <2lbs. Anyone want to make one?
– PMOct 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm #1792727
from the FAQ:
Q: How do I use my sleeping pad in conjunction with the Ohm? What pads work the best?
A: Just about any lightweight pad (foam or inflatable) will work as a 'frame' inside the Ohm. 3/4 and full length pads that can be folded (as opposed to rolled) work the best. If you are using an inflatable mattress, deflate, then fold it into 1/3's or 1/5's before inserting.
I have a circuit too, and I have used it in every possible configuration, no stays, carbon fiber stays, all stays, no CCF pad, with CCF pad, and combinations therein. I judge what supports the weight the best, and when it starts to drop onto shoulders and cannot keep angle on load lifters. Without a CCF pad, and without the Al stay, forget it. The carbon fiber stay alone doesnt work well past 15-20 lbs. There is plenty of sagging so that the top of the straps drops below top of shoulders, and load lifter angle is reduced to almost none with only 25 lbs.
The ohm is the same way.
From pictures Ive seen here, and on reviews, and blogs, theres a lot of folks who dont know how their pack should fit and be worn. Load lifter straps that are horizontal, shoulder straps that start below shoulder and wrap over, and hip belts worn low around hips or below, not across the crest. This is not the way the pack is supposed to be worn. That is the way many wear them because it is obviously not supporting the load properly, and most all the weight is riding on the shoulders.
In my experience, without a CCF pad inside, there is definitely way more sagging unless the Al stay is used too. The fabric alone is not rigid between the carbon fiber stays and the hipbelt velcro attachment. It is fairly rigid when the pack is packed with a CCF against the backpanel though. The hip belt stabilizers dont support anything, but if you look and they are angled downward to the rear, its because the pack is SAGGINGOct 19, 2011 at 7:43 pm #1792760
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.