Articles (2020)

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods – Part 1

The first part of this series provides an overview of the threats that can exist in untreated (and in some cases treated) water sources. Squeamish and hypochondriac readers be warned.

Abstract

Water in the field is not always safe to drink. We examine some of the problems that can exist, and we survey all lightweight water treatment methods for use against these problems. We also illustrate each method with at least one commercial product, but this is not meant to be a State of the Market survey of products.

Introduction

Everyone needs to drink water when working. Yes, one can go for days (or weeks in some famous cases) without food, but after a few days without water, you die. However, not all water sources found in the wild are safe (and some at home are a bit questionable too!). So, in Part 1 of this series, we start by discussing what ‘stuff’ can be found in water sources and whether it is dangerous to you. While this will get a little technical in places, we will try to keep it comprehensible to all.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 1

In Part 2 we will look at what you need to do (or can do) to make water safe. We will also cover the legal aspects of water treatment: what the USA Environmental Protection Agency allows vendors to claim. Since a lot of this touches on ‘public health’ issues, there are government regulations (set by the EPA) to consider. These specify how much reduction in contamination is required to meet the regulations. Honesty in advertising may not be found everywhere, but the EPA does try to help. And yes, the message here is ‘reduction’, not elimination. This will be explained. Things will get a little technical here.

In Part 3 we will survey the range of methods available for dealing with all that ‘stuff’. It will become immediately clear that no one method can handle all threats – short of osmotic filtering followed by triple distillation. We will illustrate the methods by looking at some commercial products, using them as examples. This is not a complete State of The Market Survey of products; rather it’s information about risks and ways to handle them.

It should be noted that a lot of the information available on the web and in the literature about water risks and treatment methods has been written by vendors, who have a vested interest in selling you their gear. They do sometime hype the risk and their products. That does not mean there is no problem – far from it. But there have been and still are some cowboys out there. Some of them may be in jail these days though, following EPA prosecution (yes, I know of cases).

Acknowledgements

Some illustrations in this Part 1 are from published research papers I have collected over the years; many are from the Wikipedia Commons. All are gratefully acknowledged.

Some of this material has been taken from the Australian Bushwalking FAQ web site. I own the copyright there.

The Risks – What’s in the Water?

As usual, we start with theory. It’s not that hard, so stop panicking. Broadly speaking, there are four main classes of contaminants:

  • Dissolved but harmless materials like tannins and salt
  • Suspended matter such as dirt, vegetable matter, clay and rock dust
  • Chemicals not included above such as solvents and agri-chemicals
  • Viruses, bacteria, protozoa, nematodes and the like, alias ‘bugs and wogs’

Each category requires different handling to meet the requirements of the American Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). This organisation is the largest internationally-recognised certification body for water purifiers. Please note at this point: in America the word purifier as used in the context of water treatment has a defined legal meaning. If a company tries to use the word without meeting the legal requirements, they can and have been prosecuted and potentially jailed. But there are many traps for the unwary here, and I have seen a few of them.

Dissolved but harmless materials

This category covers ‘natural’ things that are relatively harmless, assuming you exclude the third category listed above. One very common example is Tannic acid. This is the stuff that leaches out of timber and leaves and makes some streams brown. A common suggestion is that you should just warm this up, add milk and sugar, and behold: tea (or coffee). Apart from dissolving any natural fibre clothing and rotting the guts out of leather boots, tannin will do you no harm. However, too much of this sort of stuff can make the water difficult to treat for other problems.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 2
Sometimes leaves can leach out strange vegetable oils that behave a bit like surfactants. The bubbles in the water here are not dishwashing pollution – not where that photo was taken! The water was actually very clean, with just a bit of natural leaf oils for amusement. But – you do have to know the difference!

Another common contaminant gives you ordinary salty or brackish water. This will do you no real harm either, although it may not be very useful for survival. That’s a specialised subject that we won’t go into here. One could argue that some so-called ‘sports drinks’ should also fall into this category: some of them taste pretty awful to me. Some have been linked with collapses in marathons.

Smelly or stagnant water can also fit into this category. My wife and I have drunk really smelly stagnant water bailed out of a hole dug in the ground on a couple of occasions – we were running a little close to the edge those times. I had to block my nose before I could drink it, but it was ‘safe’ to drink (we didn’t die). However, other things can make water ‘smelly’ so making such a judgment carries risks.

Suspended matter

You know that brown stuff you sometimes find floating in the water? Bits of algae and so on? In general, this stuff won’t do you much harm either (in general). Much of it can be filtered out with a handkerchief if you are worried by the appearance. We have bailed and filtered water out of many a muddy soak: despite filtration through cloth, it often remained the colour of tea. But it did us no harm, and dinner was fine. The one exception is blue-green algae: it is very toxic so leave this stuff well alone. How to tell whether something is blue-green algae is not covered here: I don’t know.

Also included in this category are things like granite dust: the stuff that makes some high mountain streams seem almost white. Now, in theory, granite dust should not harm you, although I would recommend you not to push your luck here. There are white mountain rivers in Nepal which are famous for this, and they should not be drunk. But it’s all the upstream villages that are the real danger here!

Chemicals

This category is different from the first one purely by definition. It includes all the sorts of industrial and agricultural chemicals that can do you a nasty. To be sure, normally you would not expect to meet many of them in the wild, but you sure can. Downstream from intensive agriculture is one danger zone, sadly. You only have to read the reports on the contaminants reaching coral reefs from farming use to realise the hazard. Being downstream from some mines is another hazard: old silver mines usually leach arsenic for instance. Charming – toxic and carcinogenic.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 3
A recent hazard are the chemical used in Coal Seam Gas Fracking. They can get into the water supply and do you a lot of harm. There is a famous and viral video on the net of someone lighting the water coming out of their kitchen tap: dissolved methane!

Another set of dissolved chemicals includes chlorine and ammonia, as used by many Water Authorities to render the water supply ‘safe to drink’. It may be medically safe, but I find the smell revolting at times. So do many others, leading to thriving business in the sale of activated carbon filters for the kitchen for drinking water. These filters do reduce the amount of chlorine and ammonia in the water for a while, but please note that vendors cannot make any guarantees about how effective their filters are, or how long they will last.

The bottom line here is that water with any of these dissolved chemicals in it cannot be treated very reliably. The only safe thing to do is to seek better water elsewhere. Don’t use water draining from any of these areas. How to tell? That’s difficult, but looking upstream on your maps can help.

‘Bugs and Wogs’

Now we are getting serious (and technical). This category is the one to worry about and the one this article is mainly about. It includes several sub-categories of nasties, arranged by size:

  • Viruses
  • Bacteria
  • Protozoa
  • Nematodes, helminths & larger

Viruses

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 4

Viruses are extremely small, generally well below 0.1 um in size, down to 0.004 um. They include the rotavirus family, which includes Varicella (more commonly known as chicken pox), the polio virus, the Marburg virus and many others. The Marburg virus was first noticed in Marburg, Germany, but came to greater fame in the Congo, where in a short period it killed 128 people with a fatality rate of 83% of infections. Not pretty. Ebola hemorrhagic fever is another virus, and a pretty nasty one at that.

Not all viruses are lethal: the common cold is a rhinovirus. Actually, over 200 different viruses can give cold-like symptoms. In general you will not be in too much danger from viruses in the bush in Western countries, which is fortunate as most filters cannot reliably filter them out of the water: they are much too small. We will discuss this again later. African countries are another matter: the animal population pools and the poor standards of hygiene there can make the risks quite large.

However, being in a Western country does not mean you are risk free. Beware when downstream of any Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP). We were on a river below a large town some years ago and drank the water after careful filtration through a Katadyn filter. Little did we know! The virus load from the STP went straight through the filter. We got home that day (fortunately), but spent the next 24 hours on our backs in a very bad way. We were only semi-conscious for some of that time. Fancy that in the wild?

This particular incident was a worry as the river went straight into the Sydney water supply, which is one reason the Sydney water has to be treated with chlorine and ammonia so heavily. The ironic part is that, since the Town Council refused to clean up their STP, or couldn’t afford to (and didn’t need to for their rate-payers), the State government was forced to fund a whole new plant for them to protect Sydney. It’s called politics.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 5

Viruses can affect most parts of your body. The diagram here illustrates how some of them affect you. It should be noted that this diagram does not cover everything: new viruses are being discovered all the time. Many unexplained aches and pains are found to be caused by new viruses.

Some filter manufacturers (eg Katadyn) claim that viruses are always attached to something larger and so can be filtered out. Well, this may work for 99% of the viruses in the water, but 1% is still quite enough to make you very seriously ill. One filter manufacturer (General Ecology) claims that their patented filter can remove viruses by an extra process: this appears to be accepted by the EPA. See Part 2 for more information.

Most viruses can be treated with heat, UV, or chemicals. I say most, not all, because there are some diabolical viruses out there that can survive in near-boiling water. They evolved in hot springs and geysers.

While perhaps not a serious concern in the USA, Europe or Australia, viruses are a real hazard when you go overseas to places like Nepal and Africa. Too often villages use the river as the sewerage disposal system: I have seen many toilet sheds sitting over the edge of the river!

Bacteria

These generally fall into the 0.4 to 1 um range. They include things like cholera, salmonella, legionnaires and of course Escherichia coli (the cause of most ‘gastro’). To a biologist and others of that ilk, they are a different sort of beastie to a virus. In fact, it is possible for a bacterium to carry a virus inside it.

The technical difference between a virus and a bacterium is interesting, and reflects a major step in the evolution of life on Earth. A virus can be nearly crystalline (which is pretty amazing in itself), but a bacterium has structure. An outer membrane typically encloses fluid with DNA swimming around inside the membrane. In effect, a bacterium is a sort of single prokaryotic (‘no nucleus’) cell. When the cell grows big enough, it splits into two identical cells in a process called fission. This is how bacteria grow and multiply inside you. Some can divide once every 10 minutes!

Many bacteria exist singly, but some can associate into bacterial mats or biofilms. Some sorts clump together when starved to make ‘fruiting bodies’, containing up to 100,000 cells. Fascinating stuff, and far more complex than I have described here.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 6
For walkers the big risk is the E coli bacterium, illustrated here with an electron micrograph. It is commonly used as a measure of fecal contamination, which gives you a very good idea of where it comes from. In your bowels, it is fairly harmless, and almost everyone would have them there. However, if it gets into your stomach it will cause very big problems: ‘gastro’, diarrhea and dysentery, not to mention a ‘crook gut’. That it lives in your bowels causes some confusion for many.

It may surprise you to find out that there are hordes of different sorts of E coli species. Many are specific to one sort of animal: cows, etc. Some are relatively harmless; others, such as the recent O157:H7, can damage your kidneys and even be fatal. Check the numbers on that one: they give you some sort of idea of just how many different sorts there are. The same applies to most other species of bugs as well.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 7
Another dangerous species is Salmonella. This false-colour image shows Salmonella bacteria invading human cells in the lab. These have been found on poorly prepared or handled food in supermarkets (meat, eggs, etc). They can cause diarrhea, fever, vomiting, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. Most people recover, but dehydration can be a serious risk. The typhoidal form of Salmonella can lead to typhoid fever, which is a life-threatening illness. About 400 cases are reported each year in the United States, and 75% of these are acquired while out of the country. Transfer is usually by the fecal route.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 8
Some idea of the range of problems presented by bacteria can be seen here. Yes, a bit technical, and no, you wouldn’t normally meet many of these. Fortunately! It is in fact amusing to note the Helicobacter pylori, now known to be the real cause of stomach ulcers. Once the bane of harried business men, but now easily cured with the right antibiotic.

Bacterial growth requires nutrients or food. This is obtained from your body. By itself, this is not necessarily harmful. In fact, without a healthy population of bacteria all through your body you would be dead. They protect your skin and they run your bowels. Their action is what digests the food you eat. It has been estimated that your body holds more bacteria than ‘human’ cells. The mainly American craze for sterilising everything is, in fact, potentially dangerous to your health: you need bacteria to survive. However, some bacteria can leak harmful toxins. Those bacteria are the ones we need to watch out for.

As I just mentioned, your bowels are host to a huge mass of bacteria that are vital to your continued health. However, they must stay in their right place, your bowels, and not get into your stomach. In this context, it is important to note that bacteria cannot go backwards from your bowels to your stomach: there is a valve there to block any backflow. The principle way for bacteria to get to your stomach is through your mouth, usually from your hands. Wash your hands after going to the toilet! That said, some transmission is possible through wounds and blood during accidents, which is why medics use gloves.

Some very popular camping sites on rivers have an undeserved reputation for having ‘bad water’. Curiously, people who subscribe to this idea seem happy to drink the water from the river when further downstream. I am willing to bet that much of this reputation derives entirely from the number of young inexperienced campers who have gotten sick there, and that in all cases it was really because they didn’t wash their hands after going to the toilet. I am not alone in thinking this: see for instance class=”numorator”>2010/05/100505113249.htm Real-World Proof of Hand Washing’s Effectiveness in Science Daily. That said, it is known that cows can carry some strains of E coli that can be quite dangerous (or fatal) to humans, so watch out in farming areas.

Bacteria can (usually) be treated by filtration, chemicals, UV light and heat.

Protozoa

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 9

Protozoa are large, typically over 6 um in size. This category includes the Cryptosporidium family and the now well-known Giardia lamblia illustrated here in delightful detail. Cryptosporidium can be widespread at a low level, even in municipal water pipes, while Giardia seem ubiquitous. I gather the Giardia cysts can be spread by the likes of foxes and possibly some native animals, but they originally come from humans – again via the fecal route.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 10
They have a complex life cycle, cycling between an active state and an egg-like cyst. After you swallow them, they hatch out of their cysts in your stomach and attach themselves to the walls of your bowels. If you look at the previous illustration, you will see what looks like a huge sucker on the underside of the bug. It is just that, and is used to attach itself to the inside surface of your stomach or bowels. Once attached, they grow, feeding off your blood stream by sucking blood through the walls via that sucker. The photo here shows a really bad infestation of G lamblia attached to the intestines of a gerbil, feeding. The author of the photo does not record what the gerbil thought of the matter. Once adequately fed they turn into several cysts (i.e. they multiply) and pass out of you (in the usual way). If they get a chance they will float around as cysts until some other hapless soul drinks the water, then they wake up in the gut and start again. Every 12 hours they fission or divide into two. This may not sound like much, but after ten days of infection you could have a million of them growing there on your blood supply and irritating the hell out of your bowels. The loss of nutrients from your bloodstream can be serious too.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 11

The dose quoted as being sufficient for infection is about 10 cysts. Why not just one cyst I do not know, but apparently some people can have some resistance – which can also be overwhelmed by a big enough population. The symptoms of a G lamblia infection develop slowly, taking a week and a half to two weeks to become apparent. A figure of 10 days is often quoted. If you feel sick a day or two after drinking suspect water you can be reasonably sure it is not G lamblia. It’s very likely to be E coli. In general, you won’t notice any Giardia symptoms until well after you have got home from the trip.

If you are infected you become sensitive to any fats and rumble very loudly, usually in public, and especially after eating anything fatty – like cheese. You can be infected for weeks before you wake up to the fact that something is the matter, and in that time you will be spreading a huge load of cysts for others to ingest. Not good. It seems that some people get really hung up on the whole Giardia thing: there is even a Giardia Club in America! Reality check: they sell water filters and chemicals for outdoors people. But the site has some good information.

The big worry is that it isn’t just humans who carry G lamblia: quite a few other animal populations can spread it around, including foxes and some native animals. The Whites River corridor in the Snowy Mountains in Australia, beloved of skiers in winter, was notorious for it. Personally, I put much of the blame on the pit toilet at Whites River Hut: it was so dilapidated that most people were not game to step on the floor, let alone sit on the seat, for fear it would collapse under their weight. You can work out the rest for yourself.

Giardia lamblia are not the only protozoa of concern. Cryptosporidium are small protozoa that can cause acute short-term gastro-intestinal illness with diarrhea. There are many varieties of it. I have seen claims that Cryptosporidium can be smaller than the 6 micron limit mentioned above. Cryptosporidium is the organism most commonly isolated in HIV positive patients with diarrhea. Interestingly, they are fairly resistant to chlorine, which presents a problem for the water supply authorities. Fortunately, they are quite susceptible to UV and boiling, while filtering also works due to their size.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 12

There are many other protozoa in the world. Four general categories are illustrated here. You might now recognise the one second from the left. All can be dangerous, but there are several practical ways of dealing with them. You can boil the water, filter the water with a good EPA-rated filter or treat it with UV light. Note especially that research papers report that chlorine and some other chemicals will not work reliably on G lamblia or Cryptosporidium, no matter what the vendors claim on their packets, and it seems that even iodine is not always entirely successful against Crypto. Their hard cyst shells are a great defense against the inwards diffusion of the chemicals. However, it seems that chlorine dioxide may be effective given enough time.

Nematodes, helminths and larger

I don’t know a lot about this class, so I will include a number of quotes from Wikipedia. You can get a lot more detail there if you wish.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 13

These are even bigger, and can be every bit as nasty as any of the above or worse. Once again, there are many different sorts, a few of which are shown here. They are not that common and can be filtered out quite easily. You will run into them overseas in the tropical and Asian areas, and in a few places in America. Some of them, quite delightfully, bore into your skin (through your feet for instance), enter your blood supply, and take up residence in an internal organ. Very charming. Ultimately I believe some of them can be fatal. On the other hand, there have been experiments using certain worms aimed at boosting a person’s immune system. Figure that one out!

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 14
These are roundworms or nematodes (even if they look like bean sprouts). They are slender worms, typically less than 2.5 mm (0.10″) long.

The smallest nematodes are microscopic, while free-living species can reach as much as 50 mm (2.0″) in length and some parasitic species are larger still. The ‘mouth’ is lined with cuticle, which is often strengthened with ridges or other structures, and, especially in carnivorous species, may bear a number of teeth. The mouth often includes a sharp stylet that the animal can thrust into its prey. In some species, the stylet is hollow, and can be used to suck liquids from plants or animals. Nematode species are very difficult to distinguish; over 28,000 have been described, of which over 16,000 are parasitic. The total number of nematode species has been estimated to be about 1,000,000. In general, they have tubular digestive systems with openings at both ends. Is that enough?

Common parasitic nematodes include ascarids (Ascaris), filarias, hookworms, pinworms (Enterobius) and whipworms (Trichuris trichiura). The species Trichinella spiralis, commonly known as the ‘trichina worm’, occurs in rats, pigs, and humans, and is responsible for the disease trichinosis. Baylisascaris usually infests wild animals, but can be deadly to humans, as well. Hundreds of Caenorhabditis elegans were the only known living organisms to have survived the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster. I could go on, but I won’t.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 15
Schistosoma, commonly known as blood-flukes and bilharzia, includes flatworms which are responsible for a highly significant parasitic infection of humans by causing the disease schistosomiasis. This is considered by the World Health Organization as the second most socioeconomically devastating parasitic disease, next only to malaria, with hundreds of millions infected worldwide. They can be quite large: in the photo here the small white bar is 0.5 mm long.

Adult worms parasitize some blood vessels. Eggs are passed through urine or feces to fresh water, where larva must pass though an intermediate snail host, before a different larval stage of the parasite emerges that can infect a new mammalian host by directly penetrating the skin. Yes, that means you don’t have to swallow them: they can burrow into your feet while you are wading. As such, I guess they may not be considered solely a hazard in drinking water.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 16

The hookworm is a parasitic nematode that lives in the small intestine of a mammalian host – dog, cat, or human. Two species of hookworms commonly infect humans: Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus. A. duodenale predominates in the Middle East, North Africa, India and (formerly) in southern Europe, while N. americanus predominates in the Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, China, and Indonesia. Hookworms are thought to infect more than 600 million people worldwide.

The most significant risk from hookworm infection is anemia, secondary to loss of iron (and protein) in the gut. The worms suck blood voraciously and damage the mucosa – the lining of the gut. Hookworm is a leading cause of mother and child death in the developing countries of the tropics and subtropics. In susceptible children, hookworms cause intellectual, cognitive and growth retardation.

Is this the End of the Earth?

All of the above can be a bit intimidating, but it is worth remembering that many walkers never treat their water at all – and survive to a ripe old age. So to conclude this Part 1, I will briefly try to put all this in some sort of context.

For most walkers in the Western world the two biggest threats are E coli and G lamblia. The threat from E coli is ‘gastro’: stomach pains and diarrhea/dysentery. But E coli are mainly transmitted by the fecal route, and most people actually infect themselves. If you wash your hands with soap and water every time immediately after going to the toilet you will probably never encounter it. Mind you, the same could be said about behaviour at home. Giardia is not that common, except under special cases (like the Whites River case I mentioned above). With a modicum of care about where you collect your water from, you are unlikely to ever encounter it either.

An amusing side story here for your entertainment. The Thredbo ski resort in Australia was hit some years ago with an outbreak of gastro. It took some work to discover the source. The sewerage treatment plant was down-river from the village, and the water collection areas were up the valley and hillsides above the village. There was ‘no way’ there could have been any cross-infection over that distance, uphill. No way – until some realised that ducks sometimes swam in the open secondary treatment ponds before flying up the valley to the streams used as the water supply. Oops! Covers were placed over the ponds.

A Survey of Water Hazards and Water Treatment Methods - Part 1 - 17

I started off never bothering. Then I got Giardia in Whites River during one ski touring trip, and became quite devoted to the subject of water treatment. (A very popular place for novice tourers, with an appalling and unsafe long-drop toilet which no-one used.) The treatment, one dose of Flagyl, was worse than the disease! But, after a while, I realised I was doing an awful lot of work to no real purpose, and I stopped treating our water. Instead, I paid a whole lot more attention to what water I collected, or rather, where I collected it. I focused on small side creeks with ‘clean’ headwaters instead of large rivers, and never from below any sort of human habitation. I especially like small springs where the water comes out of the ground: a built-in filtration system. I haven’t got sick since.

If you are one of the unfortunate people who have been sick from gastro, the message is clear. If you got Giardia, my sympathy (I have had it too), but please remember that your case is one experience out of tens or hundreds of thousands of nights of bug-free camping. If you have to use suspect water sources, then some sort of treatment might be smart.

In Part 2 we will look at what you need to do if you want to treat your water, and at what the EPA regulations have to say on the matter. I will say here that you do not have to achieve a 100% elimination of all bugs and wogs; all you have to do is to get their concentration down to a level your body can handle.

In Part 3 we will look at treatment methods (at last), and illustrate these methods with actual commercial gear. This will not be a comprehensive survey of every brand and model on the market: we are concentrating on the different methods.

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review

A lightweight sub-3-pound internal frame backpack that’s well designed, durable, comfortable, and features freedom of movement innovations.

Introduction

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 1
The Black Diamond Axiom 40 internal frame backpack on a summer backpacking trips in southern Colorado’s Weminuche wilderness. The Axiom 40 has 40 liters (2441 cubic inches) of volume, weighs 2.6 pounds (1.19 kg), and costs US$150. The women’s model is the Astral 40.

Black Diamond has introduced an extensive line of well-engineered backpacks during the past two years. Since Black Diamond is a climbing oriented company, many of their packs are designed to directly or indirectly support climbing. However, some of the packs in their line are designed for backpacking. We previously reviewed the lightweight Infinity 60 and Innova 50 backpacks, which feature Black Diamond’s innovative ergoACTIV freedom of movement suspension system.

The Axiom 40 is a lighter weight and smaller volume internal frame backpack designed to comfortably carry moderate loads. It intrigued me because of its light weight, clean design, useful feature set, freedom of movement suspension, and optimum volume for weekend lightweight backpacking. This review will assess its performance and compare it with other sub-3-pound internal frame backpacks.

Specifications

Year/Model 2011 Black Diamond men’s Axiom 40 (Women’s model is the Astral 40)
Style Built-in internal frame, top loading with floating top pocket
Volume 40 L (2441 cu in) for size Medium, 42 L (2563 cu in) for size Large (tested); measured total volume size Large 50.8 L (3096 cu in)
Weight Measured weight (size Large) 2 lb 12.8 oz (1.27 kg), manufacturer specification 2 lb 10 oz (1.19 kg)
Sizes Available Men’s M, L; women’s S, M
Fabrics 210d ripstop nylon and twill, 70 x 210d Dolby
Frame Material HDPE framesheet with attached peripheral 6061 aluminum rod frame
Features SwingArm shoulder straps, OpenAir backpanel, V-Motion framesheet, floating top pocket with zippered access (key clip inside), flared top opening with drybag closure, two stretch nylon side pockets, large front stretch nylon and fabric kango pocket, two fabric hipbelt pockets, two front tool holders, two ice axe/trekking pole loops, four side compression straps, load lifters, hipbelt stabilizer straps, adjustable sternum strap with whistle, pulley-type hipbelt, internal hydration retainer loop, one center hose port
Volume to Weight Ratio 57.2 ci/oz (based on 2563 cubic inches and measured weight of 44.8 ounces for size Large)
Maximum Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity 25 pounds estimated comfortable load for an average person carrying the pack all day
Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio 8.9 (based on 25 lb and measured pack weight of 2.8 lb)
MSRP US$150

Frame and Suspension System

What’s unique about the Axiom 40 is its suspension system, so let’s cover that first.

The complete Black Diamond ergoACTIV suspension system, which we tested in the Infinity 60/Innova 50 (cited above), consists of three design elements: an ergoACTIV hipbelt that is connected to a pivot hub on the backpanel that allows it to swivel, SwingArm Shoulder Straps that are connected to each other by a cable and housing that allow the shoulder straps to move from side to side in tandem with the hipbelt, and a V-Motion Framesheet that transfers weight to the hipbelt. These three components working together allow the backpack to freely move from side to side and twist to the right and left with the user. It’s claimed by Black Diamond to be “the next advancement in backpack comfort technology”. In our review of the Infinity/Innova we had mixed feelings about the pivoting hub design because it concentrated all of the weight of the pack in one place, which placed a lot of leverage on the hipbelt with heavier loads. I understand that Black Diamond has since improved the ergoACTIV hub design, so our issues may be moot.

The Axiom 40 (women’s Astral 40) does not have the full-on ergoACTIV suspension; rather it only has the SwingArm shoulder straps and a lighter version of the V-Motion frame, which eliminates some weight and may be sufficient for a pack designed to carry moderate loads. The swiveling shoulder straps allow the pack to move with you as you twist and lean from side to side. The ends of the shoulder straps are connected to each other by a cable system very similar to a brake cable on a bicycle, providing about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of travel. See the video below for a demonstration.

The Axiom 40’s SwingArm shoulder straps are demonstrated in this video:

Youtube video

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 2
The pack’s frame consists of a HDPE framesheet and attached peripheral curved aluminum rod to create a very supportive unit in the vertical direction while providing torsional flexibility to conform to the user’s movements. The frame design is the same as the Infinity/Innova, but the peripheral aluminum rod used is smaller in diameter. The frame unit is bendable to create a customized anatomical contour to match the user (see photo below).

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 4
The pack’s OpenAir backpanel (left) provides ventilation and conforms to the user’s back; 2.5 inch (6.4 cm) wide shoulder straps (right) are contoured and well padded. The suspension system on the women’s Innova pack is anatomically contoured for women.

Pack Description

The Axiom 40 has a fixed torso length and comes in two sizes, Medium and Large (Small and Medium for the women’s Astral 40). The measured pack torso length of the size Large pack I tested is 20.25 inches (51 cm) by the conventional manufacturer method (underside of shoulder strap to bottom of the hipbelt), and 18 inches (46 cm) by the BPL method (underside of shoulder strap to center of the hipbelt). The load lifters allow some additional latitude.

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 5
Views of the Black Diamond Axiom 40: The frontpanel (top left) has a large capacity stretch nylon and fabric kango pocket; the backpanel view (top right) shows the pack’s OpenAir ventilated backpanel; each side (bottom left) of the pack has a stretch nylon pocket and two compression straps; and the top view (bottom right) shows the pack’s roomy floating top pocket. The top pocket attaches with side-release buckles so its easily removed to yield a lightened pack with a drybag top closure. The Axiom 40 has a total of six pockets – front kango, two side stretch nylon, top cap, and two on the hipbelt.

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 6
Key Features: The pack’s large stretch nylon front kango pocket (left) will expand to hold larger items like a jacket, or a wet shelter or rainwear. The floating top pocket is easily removed to save 3 ounces (85 g), and a drybag closure (right) seals the top of the main compartment.

Field Testing

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 7
I tested the Axiom 40 backpack on several summer backpacking trips and two ski trips to a mountain hut (shown) in the southern Rockies, where I carried loads ranging from 20 to 30 pounds (9.07 to 13.61 kg). My testing included on- and off-trail backpacking.

While hiking on-trail, the pack’s freedom of motion feature is obviously working but it’s not that noticeable. The benefits are more tangible and apparent when hiking off trail or traveling on skis. The pack leans sideways with you, and twists as you twist, which is appreciated. I am quite happy with this version of the ergoACTIV suspension system without the hub mechanism; it’s simple, lightweight, and effective.

Although Black Diamond rates the Axiom 40 to comfortably carry up to 35 pounds (15.88 kg), I personally found the pack comfortable up to about 26 to 27 pounds (11.79 to 12.25 kg) and problematic with heavier loads. On one backpacking trip, I carried 26.5 pounds (12 kg) comfortably, but on a ski trip to a mountain hut carrying a load of 30 pounds (13.61 kg) I had to tighten the hipbelt to an uncomfortable level to keep it from slipping below my waist. To verify this issue, I loaded the pack with 35 pounds (15.88 kg) and carried it on a day hike up a local mountain, and again found hipbelt slippage to be a significant problem.

The hipbelt tapers down to a 2-inch (5 cm) band (see views photo above) where it attaches to the lumbar pad. The design is apparently meant to coordinate with the SwingArm shoulder straps and V-Motion framesheet to enhance freedom of movement, but the downside of this design is hipbelt slippage under heavier loads. The outcome is the Axiom 40 is a delight to carry with loads under about 26-27 pounds (11.79 to 12.25 kg), but not so great with heavier loads. This result may vary upward for people with a stronger back and/or a more pronounced Iliac crest (hipbone).

With loads in the 20 to 25 pound (9.07 to 11.34 kg) range, which is the pack’s sweet spot for me, I found the pack conforms to my back very well (and holds that shape), the pulley-type hipbelt tightening system works very well, and the pack transfers all the weight to my hips. If your typical pack weight falls into that range, which is the case for many lightweight backpackers and weekend warriors, the Axiom 40 is a pack you will love. If you need to carry more weight I recommend getting something else.

The Axiom 40 seems larger than its 40 liter rated capacity (42 liters for size Large tested) – actually it seems more like a 50 liter pack – so I decided to measure the actual pack volume. I used the method I described in a previous article Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Choosing and Using a Frameless Pack. Briefly, I fill the pack and pockets with durable packaging peanuts, then dump them into a tall cardboard box and measure their volume. Using this method I found the pack’s total volume (main body and all pockets) to be 50.8 liters (3096 cubic inches), which is 21% larger than the pack’s 42 liter specification for size Large. Note that stretch pockets are not normally included in manufacturer’s volume measurements, but I include them here to show the pack’s total volume capacity. The breakdown is as follows:

Component Measured Volume L (cubic inches)
Main compartment (with drybag closure rolled once and closed) 38.4 (2340)
All Pockets (six total) 12.4 (756)
Total 50.8 (3096)

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 8
I measured the Axiom 40’s total volume using packaging peanuts (left) and found it to be nearly 51 liters (right), 21% larger than the specified 42 liter volume for size Large. Note that the pack’s top opening is funnel shaped for easy loading. The volume of the main compartment is very close to the specification, and the volume of the main compartment plus the top pocket (not shown) is almost dead on. Manufacturers do not normally include expandable exterior pockets in their volume specification, but I include them here to illustrate the point that many backpacks provide more volume than their specification indicates.

Black Diamond Axiom 40 Backpack Review - 9
Some smaller issues: 1) The hipbelt pockets (left) are tight; they are large enough to hold a mini digital camera but are simply too tight for my compact digital camera. They are only useful for smaller items and energy bars. 2) The lower side compression straps interfere with inserting a water bottle into a side pocket (center), releasing the compression strap solves that problem but then a full water bottle easily falls out when you bend over, which is an annoyance. And 3) the shoulder straps could use another elastic loop to hold a drink tube where you need it (right).

Assessment

Overall, the Black Diamond men’s Axiom 40 is a very nice backpack, provided you carry less than about 26-27 pounds (11.79 to 12.25 kg). It is exceptionally well designed and constructed to fill the needs of lightweight backpackers. I especially like the pack’s fit, contoured backpanel, hipbelt tightening system, durability, comfort, large front kango pocket, large floating top pocket, and drybag closure.

I am neutral on the benefits of the freedom of movement feature while hiking on a good trail. It’s nice, but it doesn’t make the load any lighter or easier to carry. However, the freedom of movement feature is appreciated much more while hiking over rougher terrain and traveling on skis or snowshoes.

Weight-wise, the Axiom 40 compares favorably with similar backpacks. However, there are lighter similar-sized internal frame backpacks to be found, as covered in Roger Caffin’s state-of-the-market series on Lightweight Internal Frame Backpacks. Some of the closer comparisons are summarized in the following table (manufacturer data for size men’s Medium).

Pack Volume L (cubic inches) Weight Pounds (kg) Cost US$
Black Diamond Axiom 40 40 (2441 ) 2.63 (1.19) 150
Elemental Horizons Kalais 47.8 (2920) 1.63 (0.74) 190
Granite Gear VC 60 60 (3661) 2.13 (0.97) 200
Osprey Exos 46 46 (2808) 2.31 (1.05) 179
REI Flash 50 50 (3051) 2.50 (1.13) 150

Highlights from table:

  • The Axiom 40 is the heaviest pack in the group and matches the REI Flash 50 for lowest cost.
  • The Elemental Horizons Kalais weighs a pounds less than the Axiom 40, but it costs US$40 more.

Overall, this group of sub-3-pound (1.36 kg) internal frame packs is quite diverse in terms of design, volume, and features and the final choice gets down to individual preferences. The main point to be made here is that the Black Diamond Axiom 40 compares favorably among its peers in this group of lightweight packs, and is a good choice for off-trail backpacking and ski travel.

What’s Good

  • Innovative freedom of motion suspension
  • OpenAir backpanel is contoured to fit the back and provides good ventilation
  • Lightweight durable fabrics and frame materials
  • Large front kango pocket is very handy for stuffing a jacket or carrying a wet shelter
  • Numerous pockets for organizing and convenient access
  • Fits well
  • Comfortably carries moderate loads

What’s Not So Good

  • Hipbelt slips with heavier loads, unless very tightly fastened
  • Lower side compression straps interfere with inserting a water bottle
  • Hipbelt pockets are too small and tight
  • Needs an additional drink tube loop on shoulder straps

Recommendations For Improvement

  • Larger hipbelt pockets
  • Revise the hipbelt to support heavier pack weights
  • Add a second drink tube loop on each shoulder strap, or lower the existing one
  • Route lower side compression straps behind the pockets

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.

Will Rietveld holds a Ph.D. in plant science and worked as a research scientist, national program administrator, and university professor for 33 years. Now retired, he is an outdoor writer and senior editor with Backpacking Light since 2004. Will has 54 years of backpacking experience, 13 years going ultralight. While field testing gear Will is a volunteer US Forest Service wilderness ranger and a Gossamer Gear Trail Ambassador where he promotes Leave No Trace and lightweight backpacking principles to hikers he meets on the trail. His trail name is Willi Wabbit.

New Balance MT810 Review

**(Updated 10/25: Addendum after Heavy Use)** A review of the latest in the New Balance 8xx series of light low-cut joggers and comparison to the previously-reviewed MT875 and MT876 shoes.

Technical Details

New Balance MT810 Review - 1

We have reviewed several previous shoes in this general series, such as the MT875OR and the MT876. Yes, New Balance keeps coming out with new models every year or so, which can be a real pain, but I have to say there have been improvements along the way.

Interestingly, the amount of market spin published with each generation of these sorts of shoes actually seems to be decreasing. Of these, New Balance says: “This all-terrain running shoe has a long history of proven performance, featuring N-ERGY® in the heel for advanced cushioning. With its rugged AT Tread® outsole and superior fit, the 810 trail runner is perfect for rough trails and unpredictable surfaces.” Which is rather less than previous gushes. It also seems to be more to the point and accurate. There’s a little spin about the soles and fabric using New balance names, which will probably mean very little to the average reader.

Once again, my wife Sue and I tested a pair each. My wife had the grey/orange ones in a size 10 4E while I tried some black/yellow ones in size 10.5 4E. Both are shown above. New Balance quote a weight of 387 g (13.65 oz) for one shoe, but for a smaller size. Sue’s shoes weighed 403 g (14.22 oz) and 407 g (14.36 oz), while mine weighed 404 g (14.25 oz) and 415 g (14.64 oz). Clearly, there are slight variations in weight, although some of the larger variation in mine may be due to a little residual mud.

I mentions in my review of the MT876 shoes that the sole had improved (in my opinion) over previous generations, getting just that little bit stiffer. These shoes seem to have about the same stiffness in the sole as the MT876s, which is just about the right amount for us. The stiffness is enough to allow some edging on loose terrain and small scree.

Everyone kicks their toes into things. Earlier shoes had rather a buffer of heavy PU at the front – a bit too much in fact as that made the front of the shoe ‘toe-heavy’. This has been improving through the two previous models, and the toe on these MT810s is quite light. The buffering is still very adequate, however, I can kick things and suffer no pain. There is a bit of sewing visible at the toe which might suffer some wear, but it’s a bit to the side and, I suspect, not structural.

New Balance MT810 Review - 2

New Balance MT810 Review - 7

The sole is colour-coordinated with the upper, which is very cute, but the hardness of the two coloured regions seems the same. There’s plenty of room between the lugs for grip and to let mud fall off. There’s a colour-coordinated shock-absorbing layer at the heel – it is visible in the first photo. It is firm enough to not inhibit your feel for the ground.

The tongue is very conventional, being fastened only at the root. (The tongue on the MT876s was a bit unconventional: that has not been kept.) It is padded, but not too much. It is wide enough, and there is a now-conventional loop in the middle for the laces. Threading the laces through this loop is always advised: it stops the tongue from working sideways.

The mesh fabric on the outside seems reasonably strong, and there is some padding inside it. The padding around the ankle is broad and soft, and very comfortable. The interior of the shoe is smooth.

New Balance MT810 Review - 3

The heel is robust. This is good. The exterior features a curious arrangement of fine lacing, as shown here. I have it on good authority (ie from New Balance) that this lacing is nothing more than trim! You could cut it off i guess, but you would be saving only a couple of grams.

The laces are plain, not knobby like on previous models. Well, they work, although I have to say I was becoming fond of the knobby laces as they did stop the knot from getting loose. But, these work. I do have one small criticism of the laces on the black and yellow shoes I was testing (see first photo): from the corner of my eye the laces looked like leaches. As the first few trips with these shoes were through some very leach-infested areas, that did cause some – well, worries, at times. Tough!

Field Testing

Field testing starts when we (that’s my wife and me) open the shoe boxes. Yeah, they looked okay. They felt okay when we tried them on as well.

You may have noticed that this time I went for a size 10.5 rather than my normal size 10. I wanted to see whether my feet were still growing. Well, that’s hard to say, but my impression from trying on both sizes (10 and 10.5) was that I would probably have been okay with the size 10s. I think that these shoes run just a whisker larger than the previous ones, but only a whisker.

The laces have three holes at the ankle level again, visible in the first photo. I used all three holes as my shoes were a shade large, and I wanted to make sure I didn’t bang my toes going downhill. Sue used only the first hole and found that quite enough.

New Balance MT810 Review - 4

What comes out of these two things is that one does not need to get shoes of exactly the right size, as long as they err on the large size. And how you lace your shoes is not super-critical either.

So off we went on a few walks to try the shoes out. They were very comfortable – to the point that we really were not paying much attention to them at any time. This trip combined some on-track (albeit an unmaintained track) with some pretty serious off-track stuff – scrambling through cliff lines.

New Balance MT810 Review - 5
At one stage we were traversing a fairly steep slab of sandstone. I can’t say the angle worried these shoes – although I had to be careful when there were lots of small sticks and round leaves underfoot. They can roll.

New Balance MT810 Review - 6

Always of some concern is how shoes do in mud. It’s not that we care about getting our feet wet – that happens whenever we have to walk through creeks after all. It’s getting our socks all muddy that is annoying, because the mud can gum up the socks. Well, the shoes do have some freeboard (it helps to either tread very lightly or run), and the fabric does keep a lot of the mud out. If you want anything better – try gumboots. The mud washes off reasonably easily afterwards.

Specifications

Manufacturer New Balance Inc
Web Site www.newbalance.com or www.shopnewbalance.com for purchase
Model MT810 (RB, BY or GO, depending on colours)
Last PL-1
Sizes available US 7 – 15 with half sizes to 11.5, widths D and 4E
Size supplied US10 4E, US10.5 4E
Weight (quoted) 387 g (13.65 oz) for unspecified size and width
Weight (measured) around 407 g (14.36 oz) for US10, 10.5 4E
Manufactured in America, from imported materials
MSRP US$80

What’s Good

  • Light weight
  • Excellent sole
  • Soft fabric sides
  • Little dust or debris penetration
  • Comfortable with loose laces

What’s Not So Good

  • Nothing comes to mind

Addendum to NB810 Review – after heavy use

Use

In July-September of 2012 I spent 8 weeks walking the Via Alpina Purple route, through Slovenia, Austria and Germany. Most of this country features limestone rock, and walking over that all day is a really harsh test of any shoe.

New Balance MT810 Review - 8
Left: scree slopes in Slovenia, Middle: climbing up to Roblekov Dom (hut), Right: traversing Toten Mann (Dead Man) near Warscheneck

I wore some Darn Tough Vermont Boot socks inside the shoes, and had short Lycra gaiters (like Dirty Girl ones) around my ankles to keep mud and rocks out.

Assessment

Overall, the shoes did very well, gripped well (mostly), felt very comfortable, and lasted the full trip with just a little damage right near the end.

New Balance MT810 Review - 9
The soles after the trip

The soles wore a little bit, but as you can see here, there was a lot of tread left at the end. That’s pretty good rubber. The grip was generally good right to the end, with one exception. On the second last day of the eight weeks, under Knuppenkopf on the Jubileumsweg, we were traversing some very wet and very muddy sloping sheet rock where the surface had been polished very smooth by feet, and the worn tread did not grip as well as, say, new Vibram soles. I got across, but it was a little unpleasant. (There was a bit of steep exposure right there!) Sue had some trouble crossing this rock as well, wearing a different brand of light jogger. Both Sue and I thought the track maintenance was seriously lacking on this whole stretch.

New Balance MT810 Review - 10
Left: the toe peeling off slightly, Right: a chip out of the side near the toe

The bit of rubber that curls up at the front always starts to peel off any light jogger in my experience. The bonding just never holds. However, having got this far by the middle of the trip, it did not seem to peel off any more, and I was watching it carefully. A chip of rubber did get chopped off the edge of the sole somehow (red arrow). I put this down to walking over seriously sharp limestone: some of the water-eroded edges felt sharp enough to cut skin.

New Balance MT810 Review - 11
R & L shoes, tears along the bottom of the sidewall on the outside of the foot

The photo here shows the only real damage the shoes suffered. Where the fabric joins the moulding, at the edge of the sole, it tore. It did this on both feet at the outside. I believe this was due to the fabric coming into contact with the limestone rock just there, and being stressed too much. In effect, it tore where the fabric went into the moulding.

I had better explain that the very messy appearance of the mesh fabric around the tears is due to a coating of polyurethane I put onto the fabric to limit the damage. The mesh should look black, as seen elsewhere on the shoes. I have had this problem before with other light joggers, such as the NB875s I reviewed some time ago. The similar damage to those shoes was done by 6 weeks of walking in Switzerland in 2009 over rather similar terrain. Well, at least things are consistent.

Three things are worth noting about this. The first is that the region in front of the damaged area (reinforced with perforated psuedo-leather) did not get damaged, and I am fairly sure that was due to the protection from the reinforcing. The second thing is that the NB875 shoes were even less reinforced and suffered more damage than these (over similar terrain). The third thing is that my wife’s shoes (a different brand) did have such reinforcing right along the edge, and they did not suffer this damage.

I think New Balance should take note of this and consider extending the reinforcing right along the edge. The bits at the front are working well: just keep going down the side a bit more. The upside of doing this would be extended life. The downside would a very slight increase in weight and a slight increase in bending stiffness. Both would be acceptable to me.

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review

Review of Timberland’s new waterproof lightweight hiking boot. Do they belong in the lightweight backpacker’s quiver?

The Niche of Waterproof Boots

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 1

One of the most conspicuous differences between the stereotypical ultralight hiker and the traditional backpacker is footwear. Tall leather boots to protect the feet and ankles are still the conventional recommendation for the latter, while most ultralight hikers favor trail runners of some sort, low cut shoes with soles that are typically much more flexible. One need look no further than the BPL forums to see that while this generalization may not be true for every individual, the zeitgeist of traditional, heavier backpacking sees boots as necessary and proper. The threads, which appears at least fortnightly, invariable ask some variation of the following: will my feet and ankles be ok if I give up my big boots?

For this review I will stand this question on its head – assuming that light and flexible trail shoes are best for the de facto hiker, largely irrespective of pack weight, and from this ask rather under what circumstances might a waterproof boot be useful. There are actually two questions here, for the utility of boots and the utility of waterproof footwear for hiking should be addressed separately. After these questions are examined, I will in conclusion discuss the virtues of the Timberland LiteTrace, how the boot does and does not fit into the conclusions concerning the utility of boots for lightweight wilderness travel, and compare the LiteTrace to the closest currently available competitors.

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 2

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 3
The LiteTrace, which in the shown men’s 11.5 (European size 45) weighed in at 14.8 oz per boot on my scale.

The Appropriateness of Waterproof Footwear for Wilderness Travel

One piece of backcountry dogma that is as inexorable, and quite coextensive with, the need for protective boots is the need for dry feet. Ultralight backpacking at its best questions such assumptions, with the result being new systems which enhance safety and enjoyment. The role of waterproof footwear is one such example, with the majority of ultralight backpackers having discovered the acute limitations of shoes and boots with waterproofing built in. I discuss the reasons for this in detail in my Fast and Light Shoulder Season Footwear, as well as my own preferences insofar as shoe fit and performance are concerned.

As the aforementioned article shows, I’m not the most likely candidate to review a waterproof boot. When the LiteTrace arrived I did my best to suspend prejudice and disbelief, and focus on the areas in which a waterproof shoe might be useful. My feet and I were pleasantly surprised, and while I still hold to the opinions expressed in my other article, I now think that there are circumstances under which a waterproof shoe is quite handy for lightweight wilderness travel.

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 4
Arrow Lake, Glacier National Park, winter.

Those circumstances are, in short, winter. To be more exact, moderately cold conditions (say, 40-0 F) with modest amounts of snow, where a mix of hiking, snowshoeing, and perhaps the use of crampons or other traction devices might be efficacious. Where I live in northwest Montana, we had just such a start to the winter of 2011-2012, with few nights below zero (F) and so little snow that lower elevation backpacking trips (without the need for skis or snowshoes) were possible well into January. With flowing water largely absent, the concern for stream crossings soaking the shoes disappeared, and the ability of the LiteTrace when coupled with high gaiters to keep snow out and my feet dry meant warm feet all the time. The Hydroskin sock system mentioned above works in below freezing conditions, but is entirely dependent on movement to generate heat. With the LiteTrace and wool socks, I was able to hike all day in the snow, and have dry enough feet to take a 45 minute coffee break at a particularly inspiring vista and still have warm feet by the time I set off hiking again. This enhanced ability to keep heat in would be especially beneficial for folks with cold feet and poor circulation. It’s also useful for slower-paced endeavors. I wore the LiteTraces during a snowy, backcountry hunt, where the slow pace of still hunting removed the source of heat upon which my usual hiking footwear is dependent. With a thin wool liner, vapor barrier sock, and wool insulating sock my feet were quite warm. Hikers who enjoy birding, photography, or simply prefer to walk in a leisurely fashion might, under certain conditions, benefit from the warmth inherent in a waterproof shoe or boot.

It would seem that during colder conditions, especially when snow is present and flowing water is not, that a light waterproof shoe or boot has significant advantages which might justify a place in some hikers quivers.

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 5
Packing up to packraft back to the truck after a backcountry deer hunt. Waterproof footwear helps preserve foot warmth during slower activities which generate less heat.

The Role of Boots in Hiking Success

Hiking boots and hiking shoes (the latter being usually but not always the same as trail runners) have two attributes which often distinguish one category from the other: height of the boot itself, and stiffness of the sole. While these two influence each other and typically work towards the same end, it is worth discussing them separately.

Having uppers which cover and even go above the ankles serve to provide additional support and stability, acting as low grade ankle braces, as well as protecting the ankles from rocks and other sources of abrasion. The traditional justification for the first purpose is that carrying a heavy pack puts enough stress on the ankles that the support of boots is necessary. A light pack removes much of the integrity from this reasoning, and my personal experience has shown that proper conditioning makes carrying a heavy pack (by this I mean 40 pounds or more) with low cut trail runners no more arduous or hazardous than with the beefiest of boots. Indeed, a central tenant of lightweight backpacking is that carrying a heavy load is almost inherently problematic, and that safety and pleasure can be greatly enhanced by judicious equipment selection. For those circumstances, when carrying a heavy load is unavoidable (when climbing, packrafting, doing serious photography, or carrying gear for family members), prudence still dictates that all reasonable steps be taken to lighten up, and that proper physical preparation be considered essential. I am in short still very skeptical that tall uppers have much to offer the lightweight hiker.

It should be said that the uppers of the LiteTrace are neither particularly high nor especially supportive or rigid. I eschewed the top set of lace holes most of the time and largely forgot the uppers existed. They do provide a bit more waterproof protection, which makes sense in such a boot.

The issue of sole stiffness in a boot or shoe is a more nuanced one, particularly now that the minimalist shoe movement has given the lightweight hiker a full spectrum of choices in this regard. The key here seems to be matching personal physiology, preference, and style with the most suitable balance of flex and protection. Stereotypically smoother terrain will lend itself better to more flexible shoes, while stiffer shoes will better smooth out sharp rocks and thus ensure healthy feet. Of course, very thin and flexible shoes can and have been used in very rough terrain, an approach which generally demands more strength and care from the user. I tend to favor this approach myself, thinking that stronger feet and legs are safer. Less protective shoes also tend to be lighter. In any case, sole rigidity is a very personal choice.

Additional factors come into play in the debate over sole stiffness which are peculiar to the wintery use to which the LiteTrace seems likely to be predisposed. Many hikers find snowshoes and crampons easier to use and more comfortable with stiffer footwear, given the pressure those bindings and straps often place on the feet when fitted properly. The sole of the LiteTrace is on the stiff side when compared to contemporary trail runners, and thus well suited to use with winter traction and flotation devices. While I’m not at all swayed in my stance that traditional boots are largely inappropriate for hiking, I do think that the stiffer (by some standards) sole and modest upper of the LiteTrace do offer advantages for the likely use of winter hiking.

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 6
The sole stiffness and rand structure of the LiteTrace was well matched to the flexible, ten point steel crampons I often find useful for winter hiking in the mountains (Camp Magix 10s). Such crampons can be used on flexible shoes, but provide a bit more security on steep slopes and in peculiar snow conditions than products such a Microspikes.

Conclusions

Specifications
Manufacturer Timberland
Model LiteTrace Mid Waterproof Hiker
Size Tested US Mens 11.5 (EU 45)
Manufacturer Weight 23.8 oz (675 g) per pair
Measured Weight 29.6 oz (839 g) per pair for US11.5
MSRP $170

The LiteTrace then seems to be a well-considered boot. The primary features, namely the stiffer sole, taller upper, and waterproof membrane, come together in a coherent fashion to produce a product which is well suited to lightweight hiking in colder, snowy environments. Other design elements seem to fit in line with this end. The sole features minimal rubber, presumably to save weight, and the resultant widely spaced lugs provides good traction in loose snow and mud. The necessary downside is that the hard rubber compound and minimal rubber contact makes friction minimal, and thus traction of wet rocks and damp logs is decidedly sketchy. The rest of the boot is well put together, testing revealed no weak points or significant problems, save one.

Unfortunately, that problem is rather huge. The stock toe rand includes a piece of rubber which runs back across the top of the toes to the base of the lacing. This flexes harshly downward in one big fold, and in initial strolls around town gave me nasty abrasions on the top of my middle toes within a matter of a few miles. Left as is this would have made the boots unusable. In the interest of testing I removed this piece of rubber by cutting across where it met the toe rand and then gently heating it with a lighter, which softened the glue enough to make removal fairly easy. The problem still existed after this modification, due I would speculate to the presence of glue still on the fabric. After some use this stiffness broke in, leaving the boot useable, though the problem still existed enough to leave gentle abrasions in the aforementioned areas, but only after around a day and a half of hiking. A workable, but far from optimal state of affairs, which prevented me from using the boots as much as I would have otherwise (I was unwilling to take them on my most serious trips this past fall/winter). For this reason, I did not use the boots enough to report meaningfully on the issue of durability. A cursory survey of online feedback reveals that a significant percentage of users report a similar issue with the toe rand. Until Timberland changes this on the next iteration of the boot (which I expect they will), buyers would do well to break in cautiously, and buy from a retailer with a good return policy.

Timberland LiteTrace Boot Review - 7
A modification to the toe rand which I found essential before serious use could take place.

Lastly, fit, that most crucial aspect of a shoe. I have peculiar feet, with long toes, very narrow heels, medium width toes and midfeet, and very low volume feet all around. I’ve favored LaSportiva and Inov8 shoes in the last few years because many other brands are too big. More often than not the size which fits me length-wise can be laced entirely shut without beginning to grip my feet. I find any manner of arch support to be intolerable, and often replace stock insoles with others which are entirely flat through the arch. Others have the opposite issue with regard to width, and those seeking good testimony from hikers whose feet have seemingly been replaced with miniature barrels need look no further than Rietveld and Caffin’s State of the Market Report on Mid-Height Trail Shoes. As I mentioned in my Shoulder Season Footwear article, fit should not be compromised with hiking footwear. Better to get a heavier shoe with less-than-ideal features but perfect fit than the opposite.

I found the LiteTrace to be rather long for its size, a good ½ to ⅔ of a standard size bigger than my same size shoes from Inov8 and LaSportiva. The toe box is voluminous, the midfoot thoroughly middling in width, and the heel fit about the same. I was able to get a good fit with a bit of room left in the laces for further tightening. There was no noticeable arch support, a welcome surprise in a boot. While the overall fit was not ideal, with the heel a bit loose, but not enough to cause blisters. For a boot which is I contend ideally suited to winter hiking, being oversized is not a bad thing. I had plenty of room for thick socks and VBL layering, and the roomy toe box made it easy to keep digits warm. Overall the fit seems middle of the road, and likely to please most folks with average feet.

There are several other mid-height boots which are both waterproof and fairly lightweight. One is the Salomon XA Pro 3D GTX Ultra, discussed in the aforementioned State of the Market Report. The Salomon has a comparable height and weight, and might provide a good alternative for those whom the LiteTrace does not fit. Other options, especially ones suited to the block-footed, are outlined in that report. Another light, waterproof boot is the Inov8 Roclite 286 GTX. Substantially lighter than the LiteTrace or other options mentioned here, the Roclite is also likely more flexible and narrow than anything else here discussed. For those hikers who see a place for a light, waterproof boot in their gear closet, several options exist which should allow for a good fit. Once Timberland sorts out the toe rand issue, the LiteTrace should compare favorably to the extent options.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge and is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review

This lightweight mountaineering pack from Russia provides large volume, simplicity, and durability.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 1
The Light 69 pack, photo by Bask

Preamble

This pack was sent to me from Russia at the instigation of a BPL member. The review of it has been sadly delayed by a system crash that wiped all my disks. Some recovery was eventually possible, six months later.

Introduction

Bask is a Russian company and has a very high reputation for its sleeping bags. So, I was happy to field test their Light 69 pack when it was offered. This is a single compartment mountaineering pack, and the design shows it. The exterior has a very clean design, but with adequate anchorages for ice axes and rope. Yes, it does have small side pockets at the bottom for catching the bottom end of poles, etc.

Brief Description

This is a single compartment pack of traditional design: straight sides, side compression straps, a short throat, conventional lid with single pocket, and webbing attachment points running up two sides. It is quoted at 69 L capacity, and mine weighed 1.18 kg. The lid pocket is quite large.

Field Testing

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 2
First, I took the pack on a local day trip, just to make sure it was comfortable. The load was lumpy but not heavy.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 3
Next, I took the pack on a 5-day, rather fast trip in the Australia Alps to climb the Big Dargal.

The photo to the left shows Mt Jagungal and the pack in front. It was a bit cold and misty: I had a windshirt on over my normal shirt. The photo on the right shows morning tea on the second last day, in gorgeous sun. The pack is on the right, opened up so I could get the stove out. A bit of gear spread around – it was, after all, fine weather.

We woke up the next day on top of the Great Dividing Range to find a foot of snow on the ground. Fortunately, we didn’t have too far to go as we were both wearing light joggers for this trip. But that sort of turn-around is quite common in our mountains.

I was quite pleased with how the pack performed on this trip. I probably had about 12 kg in it all told, and it rode well with no sway and no pressure points.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 4
Via Alpina route in Europe for 2 months.

I was sufficiently happy with the pack at this stage that I took it to Europe to walk the Red Route of the Via Alpina for two months. I would normally take my external H-frame pack for such a trip, but handing the very light H-frame over to the airport baggage handlers for an international flight has always worried me. So, I went with this pack instead.

I started with 14 kg total in the pack. That is probably just a bit high for the design, although it was quite manageable. If the majority of weight were food, it would soon sort itself out. I reduced the load to about 11.5 kg halfway through the trip by posting some gear that we were not using back home. That did seem to make a lot of difference in comfort.

In the composite here we have, from top left clockwise:

  • A via ferrata route above Wolayerseehutte, Austria (note the cable) – Sue wouldn’t let me climb too far though.
  • Early morning above Obstanseehutte, Austria – it was a lovely day.
  • Sue climbing up to MeilarHutte in limestone country – 3,000 metres of up and down that day ending up on a tiny col barely wide enough for the hut. For some reason Sue was not interested in taking a photo of me and the pack just here.
  • Finally, lunch on Feldernj÷chl pass at 2,045 m near Zugspitz, Germany’s highest mountain, looking at Gatterl Pass in the middle of the photo. That is a tiny gate on that narrow spur between Germany and Austria.

Okay, some spectacular photos (in some spectacular country), but the pack performed very well for the whole trip.

Technical Details

The body fabric is a light but quite strong proofed nylon, easily as good as anything available elsewhere in the world. The base fabric is strong, although a slightly tighter weave would be nice if that was possible, as I could see spots of light through the weave. However, many tough pack fabrics are like that. The buckles are by National Molding, one of the two major USA brands (ie not Chinese). The nylon webbing is, well, standard stuff.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 7

It has a couple of interesting features, as well. The lid can float if you wish. There are two webbing straps by the shoulder to adjust its position, or to detach it. Normally when this feature is offered (and I don’t like detaching lids) you end up with a gap between the lid and the pack above the shoulders which lets rain in. Well, in this pack they have added a storm shield to handle that. It is the rectangle of fabric marked with a blue cross. It works very well except that the fabric used has a sad tendency to lose the coating after a lot of heavy use. The ‘white’ areas show where that is starting to happen. The throat fabric is similar. A better fabric for the two would be nice, but remember that I gave this pack a lot of use.

If you remove the lid, you can still use this flap as a sort of lid. The two buckles marked by green lines can be secured to the conventional straps on the outer face of the pack to cover the throat. I haven’t used this feature myself.

There are no straps over the throat under the lid. As I often carry a tent on top of the throat and under the lid, this concerned me a bit. So, I added two straps as marked in red. They proved to be essential in the field for me.

Between these two added straps, you can see a little loop of yellow cord. There are a few of these scattered around the pack. You can use them as anchors for extra cords to attach gear if needed. They are quite strong but very unobtrusive. I thought they were clever.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 6
Lunch near Falken Hutte

The throat is made of a medium-weight fabric – no silnylon here. It was adequate. I would have preferred it to be slightly longer, but never had a problem as the lid covered the throat very well. In the photo here, the throat is open and only partly covered by the lid, and the sides of the lid are tucked up inside. When walking there is a complete seal.

The buckle at the waist did tend to slide very slowly: I would have to readjust it every couple of hours. To add some friction I added a bit of soft webbing to the main webbing and doubled the excess webbing back through the buckle. That worked. The problem lies with the design of the buckle: some have a more aggressive bite on the webbing than others.

There is a single pocket in the lid. I added a small security pocket inside the lid pocket to hold money and passport. Some packs have a security pocket under the lid, which is a very good idea.

The D-rings on the shoulder straps worked very well as anchor points for my camera case. The sternum strap is not long, but it was adequate.

Bask Light 69 Pack Review - 5
The internal frame sheet.

This is an internal frame pack. The frame consists of a sheet of stiff plastic foam tucked into a sleeve on the back panel, as shown here sticking out a bit. This foam is light but served well to add strength and shape and protect my back from hard lumps. It had an unfortunate curl about the horizontal axis in it, which made the pack curl up a bit when empty. Perhaps if they had oriented the roll of plastic foam the other way when cutting the sheet out it might have been beneficial. Once I got some gear into the pack, this ceased to matter. Even after the two months of continuous walking in Europe, the foam showed no particular signs of wear, just a faint curl in the corners.

The back has two padded strips down the full height: they sit on either side of your spine. That seemed to work fine, although it did get a little warm in very sunny weather. But, in the mountains, sunny weather is unreliable!

Summary

Bask makes good packs. This one gave me no trouble at all. I liked it. This might sound like ‘faint praise’, but praise it is, and I don’t give praise easily. It handled our 2-month European walk just fine.

Specifications
Outer fabric 210D DuPont Cordura 2000 PU coated
Reinforcing 1000D DuPont Cordura
Frame high-density 3 mm foam sheet
Volume (quoted) 69 Litres
Weight (measured) 1.18 kg
Hipbelt and sternum strap adjustable
Lid pocket large
External pockets none (good)
Security pocket no
Side compression straps 2 each side
Attachment points two vertical webbing chains on back
Ice axe attachments 2
Buckles and fitting: Duraflex

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge and is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.