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.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Nov 5, 2012 at 2:23 pm #1295812
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?
Nov 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm #1926527In 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.
Nov 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm #1926532Thanks 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?
Nov 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm #1926533When 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.
Nov 5, 2012 at 5:06 pm #1926553I 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.
Nov 5, 2012 at 5:07 pm #1926554Perfect! Thanks Clayton. Expedition it is!
-
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.