Topic
ULA Amp…Pics, etc
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › Gear Forums › Gear (General) › ULA Amp…Pics, etc
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Jan 25, 2007 at 7:20 pm #1375757
I loved the Ghost … and I love the Granite Gear line of panel loaders ..
Now …. if you could make a ghost but at half the 2lb weight ….. hummmmmmmm
Jan 25, 2007 at 8:30 pm #1375774My Ghost finally died in September (It was a 2001 model). The hoop shot thru the fabric, on a cross country trip. So I bought the ladies Seraph to make myself better.
Yet, how I'd love a truly light PL for summer! :-) With a big ol' mesh pocket on the back for all my crap, and maybe side mesh pockets (I have come to hate hydration bladders).
And if you could make one in a short torso I'd love you even more ;-)
(Ok, I'll shut up on the short torso spiel. It just isn't easy finding short torso packs for me and the boy)Jan 31, 2007 at 2:02 pm #1376589Folks-
The new Amp will be available to order 2/01/07. It does not appear on the order form, so you'll need to just tell me what you want in the COMMENTS section of the order form.
Delivery will follow the following week. Also, a pic of the optional modular front pocket is posted at:
http://www.ula-equipment.com/amp.htm
In case the image is unclear, there are two panels of mesh on each side of the pocket for airflow. The front of the pocket is Dyneema and has a bellow sewn into it. The back of the pocket is 1.9 oz ripstop nylon. There are 4 clips on each side of the pocket which fasten to the pack body. In addition, the ice axe loop threads through a piece of hardware to secure the bottom, and the top of the pocket has a grommet which you simply thread to the compression cordage. Top of the pocket is angled and elasticized. Dimensions are: ~11"(h) x 8"(w) x 4"(d). The pocket can be arranged OVER or UNDER the compression cordage.
As for the side pockets…they are about 9" tall. I blame my poor photgraphy skills making them appear smaller than they are.
Thank you all again for your interest.
Brian
Jan 31, 2007 at 3:08 pm #1376600Brian:
I like the Amp's modular front pocket. Any thoughts of making them in green also — as an option for your other pack models?
Jan 31, 2007 at 3:12 pm #1376602Ben-
The Amp and the forthcoming 16 oz full suspension pack are Gray Dyneema with silver 1.9 oz. All other pack models (including the upcoming panel loader) will remain Green Dyneema with Black 1.9 oz.
brian
Jan 31, 2007 at 3:28 pm #1376606Brian:
Clarifying my question above… in addition to making modular front pockets in silver as an option for the Amp — do you have any plans for making some modular pockets in green as well — as a purchase option for your Catalyst, Circuit, etc. — for times when users wish to add a bit more capacity to their packs?
Jan 31, 2007 at 7:58 pm #1376639Ben-
Ah yes…I follow you now. I was reading too fast. The answer is "No."
The mesh pockets on the other packs (sans Relay) are already so big, that I'd hate to have people carry additional weight even further from their center of gravity.
I'd probably have an optional top lid for the all the packs before an additional removeable mesh pocket.
Brian
Jan 31, 2007 at 8:15 pm #1376641Brian — Thanks for the answer.
Jan 31, 2007 at 11:32 pm #1376658Brian a man of your word, i just realized that today is the first, and sure enough there was the amp, pretty as can be. i just orderd one, so ill let everyone know how she does through the paces as soon as i get it.
mike!Feb 1, 2007 at 2:39 am #1376670Just to make sure i'm clear on this: is that front pocket a mesh front pocket? Hope so. Or, is it mesh on one side & fabric on the other side? is it reversible, so user has choice of having mesh or fabric side outward and exposed to more air, let's say for drying a tarp, etc.?
Feb 1, 2007 at 3:47 am #1376681Brian…I'm looking forward to your new packs, especially a panel loader..and, as Sarah mentioned earlier, consider the 15" body type. OK…my schpiel will continue as long as necessary! : )
Feb 1, 2007 at 7:13 am #1376693PJ-
The removeable front pocket is mesh, dyneema, and 1.9 oz ripstop. The front (majority) is dyneema, the sides are mesh, and the back of the pocket is 1.9 oz.
Brian
Feb 1, 2007 at 7:55 am #1376697Mr. Frankle,
To what extent do you think will the pocket not being all mesh affect drying times of gear placed in it when the pocket is used for such purposes? The all mesh front pocket was one of the things I liked a lot about the Breeze, G5, & Mariposa packs (of course, needed to stop periodically & refold wet gear to expose more damp surface to the air in order for it to dry).
Maybe i didn't understand the pics on the website correctly, but it looked like the user could somewhat easily detach and attach the optional front pocket, or am i mistaken and it's permanently affixed to the pack? Might be nice to have it user removeable. Why carry something that might not be needed on a particular trek?
Can a custom pocket be requested that's either all mesh or w/the back 1.9 rip & sides and front mesh? If so, why not make such a rip&mesh pocket reversible by the user, depending upon whether the user wants the mesh side facing out or in?
Just some [bad???] thoughts.
Feb 1, 2007 at 10:30 am #1376709Why no sternum strap? Nice pack.
Feb 1, 2007 at 10:56 am #1376717PJ-
I agree…that is way the pocket is removeable. It simply attaches (very securely) with 4 clips or with up to 6 points.
1)The mesh I use in my packs is heavier than dyneema. So, I minimized mesh use to focus on weight. The sides of the pocket are mesh which allows for drainage and airflow.
2)I envisioned the pocket being used primarily for rain gear and/or shelter…storing 'em when they are wet or dry.
3)Drying clothing, socks, etc, I use the exterior compression cordage to secure the wet items to the outside of the pack for maximum solar gain.
As for making the pocket reversible…to be honest aesthetics played a role in my decision not to do so.
Custom pocket? Maybe in the future…like late summer when I have a chance to come up for air.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Feb 1, 2007 at 10:58 am #1376718John-
No sternum strap…'cause…well…they are heavy and do very little IMO when loads are sub 20 lbs.
Brian
Feb 1, 2007 at 11:22 am #1376723John, when a pack has no sternum strap, i find that 1/8" diameter bungee/shock-cord works fine. Generally i use an Altitech II (has a carabiner type clip & i'm generally carrying it anyways) or just a micro-biner to secure the bungeeSternumStrap in a closed position. Give it a shot & see if this type of sol'n works for you.
Feb 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm #1376725AnonymousInactivethis is to concur with the hue and cry for a panel loader.
Feb 1, 2007 at 3:41 pm #1376758But the only reason I use a sternum strap on packs is due to boobage-something you menfolk don't (and shouldn't!) have to deal with. If the girls are er, well proportioned, the straps don't always stay where they stay on a flat chested man, and tend to ride off the shoulders.
The sternum strap keeps everything in place. Needless to say, SS's are not that big of an issue when buying a pack-I have bought the OR sternum kit a couple times over the years and added one when needed :-)Feb 2, 2007 at 2:45 am #1376835Mr. Frankle, i agree that a SS does little w/light loads when hiking straight ahead. However, my personal experience is that when one is traversing terrain that requires a lot of leaning, bending, twisting, etc., a SS does help to keep the shoulder straps where they should be. This is even more important on a belt-less pack (not that this applies in ULA's case – at least, not yet: perhaps a beltless Amp SUL in the future???), e.g. GG G6 Whisper.
Tightening the shoulder straps helps, but too tight = too restrictive at times & a light elastic bungee is all that is needed to keep those straps close to where they should be. Perhaps it's just my OCD that requires that the pack straps remain "dressed" (to be understood in its proper military sense) smartly at all times.
Feb 2, 2007 at 7:32 am #1376863PJ-
Agreed on the issue of slightly improved stability with use of a bungee or simplified sternum strap, but between the stabilizing hipbelt and just crankin' down the tension on the shoulder straps I feel like the pack is plenty stable and 'dressed' no matter the bending, twisting, traversing, leaning that you describe.
As for the Amp being SUL — well, yeah…it is more like the Hummer of the SUL crowd. :)
Brian
Feb 2, 2007 at 7:37 am #1376866>As for the Amp being SUL — well, yeah…it is more like the Hummer of the SUL crowd. :)
You mean the Governor of California has one???? ;)
Sorry, couldn't resist. It's definately a good looking pack, and I like the features for the weight over the GoLite Ion. It's definately on my short list :)
Tom
Feb 2, 2007 at 7:45 am #1376868I'VE EDITED THAT "Amp SUL" COMMENT IN MY PREVIOUS POST – AS IT WASN'T CLEAR AND WAS MISUNDERSTOOD = COMPLETELY MY FAULT. The Amp is clearly UL now, and i was only trying (and failed) to communicate that a beltless version might appeal to some who are attempting to put together a SUL (<5lb) kit. That's all that was intended by the "Amp SUL?" comment.
It was NOT a criticism, just some idle speculation about what the future might hold, esp. since, as i've mentioned b/f ULA seems to be the 'Burger King' of PACK Mfr's. By 'Burger King' i mean – "Have it your way, Have it your way!" – an nice short list of well thought out options available to customize a ULA pack the way any particular individual might like it.
Feb 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm #1376913PJ-
No offense taken at all! I did not interpret your comments as criticism of any form. I appreciate opinions!
I agree that the AMP is a bit of a heavy weight if compared to a few models from GG or MLD, or as defined by BPL as being "less than 8 oz and less than 3,000 cu. in."
My original intent was to have the AMP meet that criteria, but my final design solution did not! In the end I was/am happy with the functional trade offs made for weight increase.
FYI a hipbelt-less version would save me ~2 oz….which would then qualify the AMP for the proper SUL designation.
I really want to offer something sub 6-7 oz, but cannot really see how to improve upon the designs that are already available from other manufacturers. At that weight it gets pretty tricky to do something entirely different. In addition, being stubborn about using new materials further limits those aspirations.
IMO, the G6-Whisper is a thing of simplified beauty and SUL elegance! Every time I sit down and do some sketches, I come up with essentially the same darn thing! As far as I am concerned, unless I can offer something new or solve some functional concern (like compression) than I will forgo offering a ULA version of a product that already exists.
Ok…I suspect I am ramblin'…enjoy your weekend!
brian
Brian
Feb 2, 2007 at 3:01 pm #1376919Mr. Frankle, i am impressed with the attitude (i mean this in the nicest of ways) that came across in your last Post – so different from the dog-eat-dog, garner market share at any cost attitude that Corporate America often has. Bravo.
As far as the "stubborn" part, it doesn't seem to have hurt ULA at all based upon the incredible praise your packs receive from the users of them.
Many thanks for participating in these Forums and for engaging me in dialogue.
Best wishes for much continued success for ULA and your designs.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.