Jan 20, 2007 at 5:18 pm #1221327
Finally an image and more description of my new AMP. Please visit:
Should be ready to go in early FEB '07. Price will be posted shortly as well.
Thanks to those that have shown interest and enthusiasm…
BrianJan 20, 2007 at 5:28 pm #1375017
@aroth87Locale: Missouri Ozarks
Wow! The new pack looks great. This may be my new pack. It all depends on what MLD and GG have. And if I have extra money! I need a new pack and a quilt and I think my gear buying will be done for awhile. I may have to get that Rain Wrap too, I've been thinking about making one for a long time but never got around to it, and if I get the Amp I may as well just have it thrown in the box too!
AdamJan 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm #1375030
Very nice, Brian. Now get working on the panel loader!! :)Jan 20, 2007 at 7:29 pm #1375034
@naturephoto1Locale: Eastern Pennsylvania
I may be interested in a lighter Panel Loading Backpack as well to carry my 4" X 5" camera gear for shorter hikes and possibly for as much as 2 or so days away. My larger panel loading pack is my custom made McHale pack.
RichJan 20, 2007 at 8:12 pm #1375039
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You and that panel loader! I am working on it! The problem is my enthusiasm for it wanes…but I am making an effort to at least LOOK at it each week and do some more brainstorming and sewing.
BrianJan 20, 2007 at 9:08 pm #1375042
What would people put in the side pockets? They look sorta short. Would it hold a liter water bottle? Maybe the bottle would be meant to go also under that compression strap?Jan 20, 2007 at 10:09 pm #1375044
@jasonklassLocale: Parker, CO
Looks great Brian but I'm with Ben et al–I want the panel loader!!!Jan 21, 2007 at 4:03 am #1375058
@pjLocale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
I'll second Ben on that panel loader project.Jan 21, 2007 at 4:07 am #1375059
@pjLocale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Very nice. Looks intriguing.
In keeping with the previous ULA pattern of being the "Burger King" of L/UL pack makers (i.e. "have it your way"), is there any chance of a larger mesh front pocket as an option (keeping the compression lacing at the same time)?Jan 21, 2007 at 9:56 am #1375089
@pa_jayLocale: on the move....
Wow, superb job Brian!
I would strongly second pj's mesh kangaroo-pocket. In another post, I thought you had mentioned adding one, bumping up the volume 400ci and the weight up 1 oz. Is this still in the works?
Special brownie points on the cord compression system! IMO its the only type that compresses really well, and so few pack makers do this.
JasonJan 21, 2007 at 10:53 am #1375098
@sharaldsLocale: Gallatin Range
Yes, I think there is a general consensus towards a nice outer mesh pocket (the fabric on the Circuit is excellent but maybe heavy) is a wonderful addition to any pack.Jan 21, 2007 at 3:51 pm #1375140
Great job Brian!
The new Amp looks GREAT.Jan 21, 2007 at 4:37 pm #1375148
In regard to a front mesh pocket on the Amp…I've decided to make it modular instead and add it to the Options List to allow you to customize the Amp to your user preference.
With it being modular it is pretty slick as it allows the pack body to be compressed, while not limiting volume or accessibility to the front pocket. However, if you want, you can position it under the compression cord as well. Once I get it finalized I'll post a pic.
BrianJan 22, 2007 at 10:29 am #1375233
What I would really like to see is the artic dry pack. Any word on that? Also,has anyone ever wondered what the Conduit would be like with the addition of stays? I wish that were offered as an option.Jan 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm #1375242
Arctic Dry Pack: that project is still on my list of 'best intentions' but is not a priority. If/When I do it, it will not become a standard ULA Product, but be a limited production run. The Amp and other new packs for '07 will be released with the intention of longer term availability.
Conduit w/ stays: People have asked me about this configuration before. My perspective is if you introduce a component of suspension (stays) that is meant to stiffen the pack body and encourage load transfer, than other components of the suspension (shoulder straps, hipbelt) need to reflect
the same degree of stiffness. IMO sticking stays in a Conduit would not really result in any better load transfer, just added weight. The lightest suspension that I've come up with, with consistent suspension components is the Circuit.
BrianJan 23, 2007 at 10:00 am #1375367
Brian, I'm with PJ and the others on the WOW factor, and the pocket factor.
I think you are addressing the back pocket in a genuinely original way, and applaud you for doing so. Being able to compress the pack body without compressing the outer pocket's usability has always been a pet peeve of mine. by running the compression under the pocket you make the pack even more usable, way to go!
I'd be interested in your opinion of gussetting the rear and side pockets on the Catalyst pack, in order to make the pockets easier to use when the pack's main body is packed full? I cannot find a pack with a back pocket with the volume i need to put wet items without packing them in, thus preventing their drying out while hiking. Even a few small straps at the 2 upper/outer corners to pull the top of the gussetted pocket closer to the main body when full could thwart any worries of the pocket being 'sloppy' on the back. ThanksJan 23, 2007 at 5:57 pm #1375458
The front mesh pocket and side mesh pockets on the Catalyst (along with all ULA Packs) are already gusseted. So…are you asking for more gusset? That is how I interpretated your comments, but please clarify if I am mistaken. Thanks.
BrianJan 23, 2007 at 6:21 pm #1375461
Brian, I agree with the other posters, I would want a panel loading pack. I went to that design with my last alpine pack, and it improved the way I pack, hike, utilize gear, etc.. I don't know how I did without, and I would not go back. I would happily carry the minimal weight of a 2 foot YKK#6 zipper.Jan 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm #1375466
Go Brian!Jan 23, 2007 at 6:50 pm #1375471
Brian, first allocades for hiring a local color artist to do up the side of your shed/garage!
Well, I have been trying to pack, loosely enough to dry, my Clark Jungle hammock in a SECURE outer pocket on any pack; and have yet to find one with enough gusset to handle the 14x12x6" dimension needed to do so.
Now not having handled a Catalyst pack in person I do not know the specific dimension of the gusset, so I am just going by your photo on the website. Thanks for the reply.
Brian, I just read the 'Circuit Pack Thread' which is currently running in this forum. It contains comments on the back of pack pocket being too tight to use for certain items when the pack is full. Could you address this issue after reading those posts?
I prefer to carry my cooking gear, Ti/AL pot/cup, fuels, etc; on the exterior of my pack to reduce the chance of smells and spills from the interior of the pack.Jan 23, 2007 at 9:03 pm #1375503
The pocket on the Catalyst is REALLY big. Pocket height is 17", width us 11", depth 4". Pretty dang big…but maybe not big enough.
BrianJan 24, 2007 at 5:43 am #1375524
@naturephoto1Locale: Eastern Pennsylvania
There you go Brian, you may find that there are enough backpackers interested in carrying a lightweight panel loading pack to make the design a reality.
RichJan 24, 2007 at 9:22 am #1375545
Rich (and other panel loader fans),
I've never doubted the interest level of backpackers for a UL panel loader. I've never needed sales numbers to justify bringing a product to market. My concerns have been to get a better grasp as to how people use PL's, their expectations in a design, and of course offering something that I can produce in a cost effective and timely fashion.
The responses that I received last year when I asked about PL's were very, very helpful in educating myself about how folks use such a pack. While much of it was intuitive from a design standpoint, there were a few standouts that I had not considered.
So…all that is left is figuring out the production stuff. Once I feel confident in that arena, then I will move forward with more enthusiasm.
Thanks for the consistent reminders though!
BrianJan 24, 2007 at 9:43 am #1375548
Thanks for the feedback. Just want to emphasize that while some of us are rooting for a PL, this takes nothing away from your fantastic TL packs! Congrats on the Amp — you've got yourself yet another winner!Jan 25, 2007 at 5:52 pm #1375745
thanks Brian, those specs seem usable, but in the Circuit thread folks were mentioning that the pocket had difficult access once the pack was full?
If you need a model for a PL just use the ever popular Mountainsmith Seraph/Ghost pack! I missed out on that beauty of a panel loader apparently…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.