Topic

External Frame Packs?


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) External Frame Packs?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 23 posts - 26 through 48 (of 48 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1958599
    Barry Cuthbert
    BPL Member

    @nzbazza

    Locale: New Zealand

    Our favourite Mod Roger Caffin uses a MYOG external frame pack that weighs under 1kg (~2.2lb).

    He has even has a page showing his design

    http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/DIY_RNCPacks.htm

    #1958603
    Daryl and Daryl
    BPL Member

    @lyrad1

    Locale: Pacific Northwest, USA, Earth

    Here's an option for those of you who like to make your own gear.

    External Frame Pack

    #1958606
    Jake D
    BPL Member

    @jakedatc

    Locale: Bristol,RI

    pff just go packboard Hut Croo style.. (do repeated resupply loads for 3-6 months.. become a beast)

    #1958620
    Richard Fischel
    BPL Member

    @ricko

    and no waist belts. like movers they like to keep the weight on their shoulders.

    #1958623
    Jake D
    BPL Member

    @jakedatc

    Locale: Bristol,RI

    From what i've seen they tend to hike like they are posing there.. hands on the bottom rails to help take some of the load. regularly do 50-80lbs with 100lb load being a prized accomplishment.

    #1958636
    Brian UL
    Member

    @maynard76

    Locale: New England

    I would like to see a leaner smaller external frame sized for modern UL loads. The pack bags can be changed and canisters and other things cold be strapped to it. The size of traditional externals seem too big for lighter loads and more compact gear. Would love to see what some modern external deigns would be like.

    #1958647
    Nick Larsen
    Member

    @stingray4540

    Locale: South Bay

    Brian:
    Like Mr. Fowler, I am also working on a UL external frame, although, you are likely to see his before mine. I think there is a lot of potential for UL externals. Time, and the market, will tell I suppose.

    #1958651
    Jason McSpadden
    BPL Member

    @jbmcsr1

    Locale: Rocky Mountains

    What I have done is used an old but beautiful Trailwise external frame that weighs 2 lbs 8 ozs. with just the frame, shoulder straps, waist belt and back mesh but no packbag. Laid down my silnylon Rayway tarp and put all my gear in it. And then wrapped it up neatly and tied it to the frame using a diamond hitch. I haven't used this set up often. Kind of just an experiment. I realize it puts my shelter at risk being used as the packbag/wrap. I've thought about sewing a lighter pack bag or using a silnylon ground cloth as a substitute for the tarp. But I haven't done that yet. It's not ultra light but it is very comfortable. I think I could carry quite a bit with it–but I don't want to.

    Pack

    Diamond hitch video

    http://www.veoh.com/watch/v4206938jwDQbHB2

    #1958657
    John G
    BPL Member

    @johng10

    Locale: Mid-Atlantic via Upstate NY

    My kelty has a MUCH higher center of gravity than my Lowe internal, which causes me to work more on rocky ”stair step like” trails. I think if the pack bag was attached 12” lower it would probably fix this problem.

    The Kelty is also a lot wider, causing it to catch lots of branches on the trail, which almost pulls me over backwards sometimes. I think making the frame and pack bag 9-12” narrower, and mounting the bag lower would fix this.

    The frame bars hit my shoulders when I swing my arms when walking naturally but quickly. I think making the frame narrower would fix this.

    The many extra pockets were always ” not quite big enough to fit my filter, bowl, wind shell, etc, and I could never remember which pocket had which small item – so I ended up packing everything in the main compartment, and 1 big (lid sized) pocket.

    The external pack swayed around when I walked. It didn't pull me around on rocky trails but an internal frame pack was much easier to hike with through rock / boulder fields.

    The internal frame pack fit much better in a canoe or inside a tent, or in my car.

    #1958660
    Max Dilthey
    Spectator

    @mdilthey

    Locale: MaxTheCyclist.com

    Thanks for the input. if I got the Kelty, it wouldn't be for moving fast or bushwhacking. Still, as you're not the first person to say this, I am giving more consideration.

    I think I'll try one of the school Kelty's out for a weekend trip.

    #1958669
    Nick Larsen
    Member

    @stingray4540

    Locale: South Bay

    Max:
    if you are undecided, check out Craigslist and eBay. You should be able to find an old jansport or kelty for $20. Cheap way to find out if you like it before buying a new model. Unless of course you can borrow one for a weekend.

    #1958697
    Daryl and Daryl
    BPL Member

    @lyrad1

    Locale: Pacific Northwest, USA, Earth

    I like the following features of an external frame pack because they allow me to experiment with and fine tune the fit and use of the pack:

    (1) Frame can be adjusted upward or downward on waist belt.
    (2) Bag can be adjusted upward or downward on the frame.
    (3) Waist belt, shoulder straps frame and bag can be replaced independently because they typically aren't sewn to each other.

    #1958699
    Ken Thompson
    BPL Member

    @here

    Locale: Right there

    Some classics on Craigslist up here.

    Really on trail they are fine.

    #1958755
    Rex Sanders
    BPL Member

    @rex

    Started with external frame packs way back when (no-name Boy Scout, REI, Trailwise). Switched to internal frame in the 1980s – MUCH more comfortable, and smaller volume meant I had to carry less, enforcing a kind of lightweight discipline.

    Skipping ahead to early 2000s, tried a variety of internal frame packs that handled traditional weights poorly. Tried the Luxurylite, but I hated the fit and the rigid frame (other people love them). So went back to internal frame and learned to pack much lighter! I can tolerate occasional overloads to 35 lbs (e.g. long water carries), YMMV.

    I sweat like a pig with either internal or external frames, no major difference for me. A good synthetic t-shirt works wonders.

    HMG Windrider is my current pack of choice.

    Generally speaking, if you want light weight and comfort, internal frames work best. If you want or need to carry a lot of weight, check out external frames.

    #1958799
    Erik Basil
    BPL Member

    @ebasil

    Locale: Atzlan

    Generally speaking, if you want light and narrow at the expense of comfort and ventilation, the internal- or frameless-backpacks and rucksacks are better.

    If you want comfort, ventilation, high-placement of your load and/or the ability to carry more load, an external-framed pack will be better.

    If you want what's most trendy, the last few decades give you an internal frame and these days you need some translucent, disco material to really make the grade. All the cool kids have it. The link to Roger's home-built, UL external-frame backpack with UL materials crosses all boundaries and must therefore somehow be immoral and likely illegal in Australia. :)

    "Generally Speaking", implies the existence of exceptions and acknowledges that we might all be "more comfortable" with the product(s) we've invested in.

    The largest-capacity packs one can buy are internal-framed rigs with far more capacity than any commercially-available, external-framed packbag. I think back to a couple we met on the PCT a few years ago, he with a giant, blue cordura internal-frame that must have been 40" tall and which he reported to be 80lb for their 7-day trek. when he set it down, I think I felt it thump the earth… His comment at my Kelty was that he used to have one, but it couldn't carry enough stuff! All I could think was how that entire load rode right on his back. Nuts, man. Probably very comfortable!

    Noting the absence of UL-Externals on the commercial market, it's also notable that the typical internal-framed backpack, say at REI, weighs far more than an external-framed pack of similar volume capacity. They're heavier, less comfortable, more expensive and cantilever the load out off the back with a narrow profile. This is another reason why the reliable, light, comfortable, ventilated external-frame packs are still preferred by many youth and adults that care (and that carry higher-than UL load weights). Go with the stuff that weighs less and works better. How cool would it be to have external-framed, commercial packs with UL-quality packbags? VERY.

    #1958895
    Daryl and Daryl
    BPL Member

    @lyrad1

    Locale: Pacific Northwest, USA, Earth

    How about this as a comparison?

    External frame packs are like pickups and Honda Fits.

    Internal frame packs are like BMWs and Porsches.

    #1958934
    Bob Shaver
    BPL Member

    @rshaver

    Locale: West

    external frame packs work just fine. We did the JMT using them in 1971. Of course there were no internal frame packs them. Part of our route was over a cross country pass, and over snow.

    John Muir Trail cross country pass

    We also used external frame packs in all other situations: going cross country, going through brush, with heavy loads, ski mountaineering, with irregular or strap on loads. They are definitely better for heavy loads, like 60 lbs plus, and they work fine in the other situations.

    That being said, I still have my Kelty Tioga, but use an REI Flash 65. My current gear fits in it perfectly, and its compact.

    #1958981
    Nick Gatel
    BPL Member

    @ngatel

    Locale: Southern California

    Bob,

    The 2nd guy from the bottom looks like his pack is working against him :)

    In general, I agree with you. But a properly fitted internal works better in the kind of terrain in your picture and in cross country travel where tree branches and shrubs are likely to be obstacles.

    On advantage of a quality internal is the ability to bend the stays to match the shape of your back. A quality internal can carry big loads just like an external. A McHale hip belt is more comfortable than anything on the market — past or present, and his larger packs can carry anything an external can with more comfort.

    When both styles were plentiful, externals cost a lot less. Externals aren't the best choice for bushwacking or Class 3 and above travel. My Kelty D4 only weighs 3lbs 9oz, and my Kelty Serac tips the scale at just under 5lbs. An internal that can comfortably carry the same weight as these externals weigh more and have all sorts of adjusting mechanisms. I find it is much easier to "live out of" an external frame pack. I still use my externals occasionally, but my McHale packs are my "go to" packs. A properly fitted internal frame pack is going to be more comfortable than an external, assuming you have a quality internal pack.

    As to why did externals become nearly extinct?

    Colin Fletcher caused the change. In the Complete Walker III, published in the early 80's, Fletcher had switched from an external Trailwise to a Gregory Cassin (which was heavier) and extolled the virtues of internal frames. The "backpacking faithful" dumped their external packs and rushed out to get an internal. Gregory owes his success to Fletcher, and Trailwise no longer exists. Also the gear retailers saw a great opportunity. Most internals cost at least twice as much as an external, so there was more money to be made on an internal pack — and thus the salesperson would recommend an internal. Some of us old farts just kept using our externals.



    Max,

    You might find these interesting

    Vintage Keltys

    Kelty D4 Trip

    #1959030
    John G
    BPL Member

    @johng10

    Locale: Mid-Atlantic via Upstate NY

    Most of the scouts in my area use externals, but its because they are half the price, very sturdy, and more adjustable – which is important for parents who want a pack that will fit a 12 year old, and still fit a 16 year old later after they grow.

    The scouts who can afford to, switch to internal frame packs after they get close to an adult height (and their parents are pretty sure they won't have to buy another pack next year). Part of the motivation may be to look cooler, but they do remark on how much easier they are to hike with on our trails (which are rocky, sawtooth hills with overhanging tree branches everywhere. Ie: big green tunnel :-) ).

    In general, I would buy externals for a youth group like a college because you can adjust the width between the shoulder straps, torso length, swap out straps or hip belts when they get worn out or to fit different sized people, and they are more durable in a rental environment.

    However, internals took over the market for a reason. Even though the externals were half the price, and are much easier to pack / live out of due to the big wide opening. ”Coolness” wears off quickly when something else works better, so I don't think internals were just more fashionable.

    I personally think externals are great for hunters or people taking supplies to a remote cabin. Ie: who have to carry lots of weight. But for regular backpacking, I like internals a lot better. If I lived where trails were gently sloped, and didn't have lots of trees, then I might prefer the ventilation of an external.

    That said, I did a lot backpacking over steep rocky trails with lots of trees with an external. So, if cost is a issue, get an external, drop the pack bag to its lowest setting if there are lots of trees or steep rocky trails – and enjoy your hike ;-)

    #1959062
    Kevin @ Seek Outside
    BPL Member

    @ktimm

    Locale: Colorado (SeekOutside)

    I will agree that old school externals are not the best for scrambling terrain, however for pure load hauling and efficiency of performance to weight, they win hands down. The reason a heavy duty Mchale carries well is because it has many of the external design features added to an more internal style design, but it is heavy by comparison.

    I haven't carried a 100 lbs on my back as often as some I know, but i have carried weights above 75 a lot of times, and 100 a few times, on steep terrain without trails, and every time the external wins. I recently did a 90 lb test load on an external that was under 2 lbs. The base design flat works. The internal design when it comes to heavy loads , is mostly one band aid placed on another IMO.

    I tend to think the actual range where an internal has much of an advantage is very small. If I'm going super light, I go frameless and use a sleeping pad, if I'm going somewhat heavy , I go external. The internal really wins in the 15 -30 lb range.

    There are some sports where an internal has an advantage (XC skiing and climbing) but the advantage is mostly about the profile of the external, and not the design itself. I will admit, I wouldn't want to take a long fall with a an external on, but the reality is I don't want to take a long fall with any pack and if I took a long fall, the pack I'm wearing is probably the least of my problems at that moment.

    #1959158
    jim logan
    BPL Member

    @jim_logan

    My hiking buddy still uses his external even on some bushwhacks; at 65, he's a year older than I am and both of us have shed a lot of excess carry weight in the last few years from "the old days." For some time I have been looking at my old Tioga and planning on biting the bullet and pulling it out to join him, and this fall we will have the 3-day trip to do it on: no base camp and fairly flat. However, one big reason why I plan on using it is the accessibility of my gear: I love the many pockets and storage places. I am looking forward to not needing to undo everything to get to what I foolishly put near the bottom of the GoLite I would otherwise be using. I may even try it out before the fall even though our current plans for earlier hikes include significant bushwhacking.

    #1959162
    Erik Basil
    BPL Member

    @ebasil

    Locale: Atzlan

    Jim, if you pull out that old dinosaur Tioga, check out the shoulder straps. Mine hardened after 30 years and, when I called Kelty to see about ordering some just like those on my son's newer pack, they comped them out to me after I sent a photo. Now the new straps… ahhhh, better than the older ones ever were. They're contoured and slightly breathable.

    I stuck with the waist band, mostly out of lazy but also because the Cam-Lok is so simple (and programmed into my head) compared to the newer clickers. It's heavier, of course, but so it goes.

    I've left my extension bar in the pack, mostly because I use it for a handle when I spin the pack on or off, but you can obviously shave weight by eliminating it. Depending on the era and size of the Tioga, it might be just under 4lb of pack weight and 50 gallons of "cool". :)

    #1959220
    jim logan
    BPL Member

    @jim_logan

    Erik,

    You're absolutely shoving me into using it. Great ideas! Looking forward to playing with it on the trail — and in the bush. Thanks.

Viewing 23 posts - 26 through 48 (of 48 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...