Feb 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm #1285929
We can't just call it the Jam anymore, they're all the Jam, just in three different (35, 50, 70 liter) sizes.
Stock weight of the large 50L is 31 oz (I got this wrong in that other thread). In many/most respects, it's the same as the 2011. Size looks the same, compression system is the same, big rear pocket is similar, etc. Bladder sleeve is now lighter stretch mesh and huge, the size of the whole inside back panel. Side pockets are the same stretch mesh, and seem a bit taller and stretchier than the 2011 ones. Reachable with the pack on, but only just. A few details save a bit of weight over the 2011, for instance the inside of the big pocket is a light ripstop, not the heavier Gridstop. It has load lifters, and softer foam in the shoulder straps. I worry about that, as I really liked the 2011 Jam straps. Center stripe of heavy-guage 3D mesh on the back is the same. Adds weight, but actually allows air circulation, increases traction of the pack and thus improves load carry, and provides some resistance against rubbing the tailbone and vertebrae. Foam framesheet appears to be identical to the 2011.
The biggest difference is the hipbelt. Much wider and longer than the previous version, with similar foam to the straps, which seems resilient but is quite a bit more flexible than the 2011 foam. The pockets are huge, with the lower part being the same stretch mesh as the side pockets, and the gussets being substantial. They'll hold lots, even with the pack on.
I predict a lot of folks are going to like this belt a lot. But some folks, namely those much skinnier than me (32" jeans) with long torsos, are not going to be able to use this pack. As you can see, I have about 1.5" of slack left in the belt. I do tend to where by belt higher than many, however.
Time will tell. In any case, Golite is not resting on their laurels, and easy though it may be to snipe about GoHeavy, the jam remains a solid option. It unites value, durability, and a sensible and versatile feature set in a way which no other commercially available pack does.Feb 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm #1842086
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
Thanks for geeking out on gear lately Dave, cool seeing new pack options for folks. I was never crazy about the 2010 belt and the small hipbelt pockets, but the new wider version does look comfortable and generous. I am one of those long torso'd 32" waist folks, so probably SOL in picking one up if your experience has the belt maxed out.Feb 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm #1842091
It fits me just fine. It probably won't fit my wife, which is a bummer as (with almost identical torso lengths) we can usually wear the same packs.Feb 20, 2012 at 5:24 pm #1842113
Looks good. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about how it carries. I likely only have one more season left in my old model Jam.
Thanks for all the testing you've been doing, I've always appreciated the field usage criteria you try and stick to.Feb 20, 2012 at 6:18 pm #1842145
Are they doing away with the Pinnacles? Don't see the need for both since they looked nearly the same to start.
Edit: Nevermind, I saw in the other thread that Pinnacles are indeed discontinued.Feb 26, 2012 at 9:39 pm #1845430
After using it a time or two, I have to report that it carries, like a Jam. Supports the load just fine, hugs the body exceptionally well, just disappears during ski-bushwacking and other shenanigans. I'll repeat: a lot of people are going to really like the new belt design. The pockets are great; each will hold four snickers and a pair of powerstretch gloves without causing pressure points. And the zips are easy to use with one hand.
I can't confirm the rumor that this will be 100 bucks at retail, but that would be exciting.Feb 26, 2012 at 9:44 pm #1845431
That belt is huge. I'm 6'4" 32" waist and there's no way that would fit. Oh well.Feb 26, 2012 at 10:06 pm #1845436
@justin_bakerLocale: Santa Rosa, CA
35 liter jam? Are the hip belts the same on the 35? If so, I will replace my peak. The belt on the peak is horrendous.
However, I am a 30 inch waist. Do they have small sizes or am I screwed? I would remove those hip belt pockets anyways so does it really matter?
How did you get this…. did golite send it to you for review?Feb 27, 2012 at 7:27 am #1845498
This pack was sent for a review.
As for belt sizing, I do not know. I would assume they'd adjust for sizing; a safe bet, but best confirm with GoLite. To inject some objective data here, the belt on this pack has a circumference of 32 inches (when the pack is layed flat and measured end of padding to end of padding.Mar 8, 2012 at 10:21 pm #1850945
Dave, can you post the weight and dimensions (including thickness & "firmness") of the Jam 50L's removable back pad?
If it makes a reasonably good torso pad for sleeping, I'd count that as dual use weight and deduct it from the overall weight of the pack. Many of the LW/UL packs being compared to the Jam have no back pad.Mar 10, 2012 at 10:09 am #1851646
I emailed GoLite and they wouldn't tell me the pad's dimensions or weight, though they said it was about 1/8" thick. Anybody got more info? Would a thicker pad fit in the sleeve?Mar 10, 2012 at 10:53 am #1851659
"I predict a lot of folks are going to like this belt a lot. But some folks, namely those much skinnier than me (32" jeans) with long torsos, are not going to be able to use this pack. As you can see, I have about 1.5" of slack left in the belt. I do tend to where by belt higher than many, however."
Confused here. From the picture it looks like you have over six inches of slack in the belt.Mar 10, 2012 at 11:16 am #1851667
He means the amount of belt left to cinch, not the excess (ie if he were any skinnier, it wouldn't fit him).Mar 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm #1851719
I see now, thanks for explaining.Mar 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm #1852104
The new backpad is 1/8" thick, 2 oz exactly, and extremely stiff, dense foam. Earlier I said it was comparable to the 2011 pad, but upon holding them next to each other I retract that. The 2011 is 1/4" thick, and while very dense foam, is still foam. The 2012 pad is as close as foam can get to being a plastic framesheet and still be foam. Pinching it between my fingers leaves no dent whatsoever.Mar 11, 2012 at 4:34 pm #1852110
Very useful, thank you David. Do you think a softer, perhaps thicker pad would fit in the pad pocket?Mar 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm #1852161
If you cut the overall down a bit, then yes. The current pad fits very tightly.Mar 12, 2012 at 6:37 am #1852384
how about fitting a pad in the bladder sleeve and leaving the thin oe one alone? I very much like the idea of something closer to a frame sheet vs a thick soft pad, that has to help in the carry departmentMar 12, 2012 at 8:08 pm #1852752
I'd agree. Carry department is good.Apr 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm #1863660
A few notes on the new suspension components after a bit of use, including a recent trip where 3 days of food and 10 liters of water pushed the load pretty close to the packs limit.
The belt is excellent. The softer foam (as compared with '11) hugs the hips very well, and the extra surface contact results in a product which is very comfortable. While I still have a bit of slack left in the belt, even when pulled tight under a heavier load, the adjustment is awkward and less than ideal. I'll likely modify this.
I do think the new shoulder straps are less than ideal. It isn't the thickness of the foam, so much as the extent of the circular perforations (the '11 straps had this too, just must less). The resistance of the padding to loads near the upper end (25+ lbs) is not as good as it should be. I'd encourage Golite to go back to the previous generation.Apr 4, 2012 at 7:26 pm #1863778
@johng10Locale: Mid-Atlantic via Upstate NY
How'd the new framesheet hold up to that much weight ? Any less torso collapse than the old foam ?
What the issue was with the new straps ? Did they curve into a tube and cause pressure – or something else ?
Are the hip belt pockets removeable ? The BPL review of the 2010 Peak makes it sound like they might be (if the pockets are the "removeable wings").
Also, any guesses on whether one of the SMD or GG hoop stays would improve the carry with 25-27 lb loads – and fit into the pad pocket ?
Thanks.Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 pm #1863788
The straps are (for me) ideally shaped. No deformation or other nonsense. I'd just prefer a little more beef to spread the impact of the weight around.
The belt pockets are not removable (save with scissors).
The Jam carries 30 pounds well, if you pack it well. I'm not sure the newer, thinner yet denser framesheet performs differently than the 2011 one.
A major part of the article I'm working on will test torso collapse with both the stock configuration and other, MYOG solutions, which will include various sorts of stays. It wouldn't be hard to make such a device yourself. For instance, I've laminated an alu stay from the hardwear store between two layers of foam pad, which results in a very useable product at a total cost of perhaps 10 dollars. The dimensions can be tailored to suit.Apr 4, 2012 at 8:05 pm #1863789
You mind taking a photo of that laminated stay and sharing it with us? How much does it weigh? Thanks Dave.Apr 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm #1863827
They don't look like much, just two layers of various sorts of foam (glued with contact cement). The blue CCF from Walmart is cheap and sturdy. I've made several different ones for various packs and projects. Weights vary from 4 to 10 oz based on dimensions, thickness of the foam, and size of the stays.Apr 5, 2012 at 5:53 pm #1864172
I'll add this….I went to check out the new Jam's, and I'm not sure I'd want to carry anything over 20# with those shoulder straps.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.