Topic

HMG Porter vs ULA Ohm volumes?


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) HMG Porter vs ULA Ohm volumes?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1295812
    Kyle Meyer
    BPL Member

    @kylemeyer

    Locale: Portland, OR

    I currently own an Ohm. I use it for summer and winter backpacking. In the winter, I have it packed full with Hok skis and a shovel strapped to the outside—hardly perfect. I'm just about to order a Porter because I'm looking for some extra space and waterproofing.

    According to ULA's website, the Ohm has 3960 cubic inches of space with the extension collar and all the pockets. That's 500 cubic inches more than HMG claims fits in the Porter. Is this accurate? Can you actually fit less in the Porter than a stuffed full Ohm?

    Should I go for an Expedition instead?

    #1926527
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    In April of 2010 I filled my 2009 ULA Ohm with packing peanuts, mushed it around until it looked typical (versus optimally barrel shaped), poured the peanuts into a tall slender box that approximated the shape of the Ohm, measured the depth, multiplied by the area and voilĂ  – it held 2550 ci total, of which 600 were in the extension collar. That doesn't include pockets. That thread can be found Here.

    When BPL did their June 2011 Lightweight Pack article they found the ULA CDT was over rated by about 25%, using the same method. The details can be found in this Archive.

    Now you need someone to do that with the Porter.

    Otherwise it's all smoke and mirrors.

    #1926532
    Kyle Meyer
    BPL Member

    @kylemeyer

    Locale: Portland, OR

    Thanks for the resources Greg. Your numbers actually pretty accurately reflect the numbers listed on ULA's website here. The additional 1400ci comes from the back mesh pocket and side pockets.

    Anyone try both the Porter and Expedition? Is the Expedition too big to be the only pack someone uses, even for 10lb summer base weights?

    #1926533
    Jason Elsworth
    Spectator

    @jephoto

    Locale: New Zealand

    When I last contacted HMG they confirmed, to my surprise, that the Expedition weighs less than an ounce more than the Porter. So the Expedition is definitely worth thinking about.

    #1926553
    MFR
    Spectator

    @bigriverangler

    Locale: West

    I just bought a Porter (size medium) and I tried out an Ohm 2.0 (size large) this summer, and I would say that they are pretty equal in size, except that the Porter has a much taller extension collar.

    Keep in mind that the Porter has no external pockets to add to the volume, and the side pockets on the Ohm are quite generous.

    #1926554
    Kyle Meyer
    BPL Member

    @kylemeyer

    Locale: Portland, OR

    Perfect! Thanks Clayton. Expedition it is!

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • 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!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...