Introduction

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

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:

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.

Field Testing

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:

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).

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.

Technical Details

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Niche of Waterproof Boots

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.

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.

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.

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.

Conclusions

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction

The Blaze A.C. 60 is not born of blazon fireworks or Las Vegas-style, in-your-face theatrics. Its appearance is relatively unassuming, though not unattractive… techy enough to look like a contemporary pack, but without standing out, the Blaze reminds me of a good spy’s ability to blend in. It performs well in the field, too, and looks its role: solid, light, utilitarian.

Specifications

Checking out the Basics

The Blaze A.C. 60’s identity is clearly Granite Gear, with the twin vertical “fins” of robustly nubby nylon. Between those familiar fins is a new feature, however – a stretch mesh pocket running the full height, constrained by a Lineloc compression system in place of the familiar webbing. In fact, the whole pack compression uses Linelocs and cordage in place of traditional webbing and “Fastexery.” It is clean and streamlined, with paracord-esque cordage joining panels via compression points. There is a matching pair of stretch mesh side pockets of conventional depth as well, and a small quick-release Lineloc to allow compressing over or under/through the pocket.

From the factory, the Blaze comes lid-less, a roll-topper with a sleeve that extends about a foot above the frame and main body of the pack. An optional top pocket is available for those of you who just have to have a lid, but I was quite happy with the pack sans lid. One compression strap crosses laterally over the top of the pack, and one crosses front to back. For a 12-inch extension above the frame, my initial impression was that the two straps wouldn’t provide enough load control, but field trials showed otherwise.

My torso length is 17.5 inches; given that most Regular (or Medium) frames start around an 18-inch torso length, I trial-fitted both a short and a regular frame. I found that the regular frame fit me better. I generally wear a 33- or 34-inch waist pant, and found that the size medium hipbelt fit me well. Actually, it seems like the Blaze A.C. 60 belt wraps around more than many other manufacturers, to the point that I briefly toyed with a size small hipbelt, but the medium was clearly the way to go for me. The only difference in the women’s Ki model is a women’s-specific hipbelt; both genders get the same shoulder harness (and rest of the pack). In all honesty, “back in the day” we used to make packs gender-specific by swapping the shoulder harness and hipbelt, and generally by selecting a shorter-torsoed pack for women. My point is that prior experience has shown it to be a practical way to fit and manufacture packs, with equal comfort and performance, and I openly embrace any such endeavors of simplification.

The shoulder harness worked well for me and proved extremely comfortable under a variety of loads and miles, but my decade or so of experience as a professional packfitter prompted some thoughts about the harness that I would recommend you consider when fitting the pack. The harness, while of excellent construction and state-of-the-market in finish quality, is not as curved as other harnesses on the more ‘traditional’ market, and the straps are perhaps a touch longer in use. As I said, I found the pack and harness quite comfortable, however, there is little strap curvature around the neck, and some people might experience a bit of rubbing there. This is of particular note because the way we typically adjust that neck opening during a fit is to raise or lower the harness. In fitting many, many people, I have found that the Granite Gear harness tends to fit a little too close, borderline pinching on some people, even when the straps cannot be lowered/the torso made shorter. Also, I’ve found that the clearance of the shoulder harness isn’t ideal for the exceptional variety of people Granite Gear intends to fit with their packs. I strongly encourage Granite Gear to consider developing slightly more anatomical and more sizes of harnesses. End soapbox.

The frame of the Blaze seems to provide a good amount of support for an ultralight pack. The back panel is a serpentine-ish molded foam sheet that inserts into a stretch mesh back panel. I’ll admit, I thought the air channels looked pretty gimmicky. I mean, c’mon. How well can they work? But on an early prototype I was testing, which was trial-fitted with stacked and glued foam, a few of the foam blocks shifted and on some stretches of trail I absentmindedly found myself thinking that my back seemed a bit hotter and wetter. The production model is rock-solid, one-piece construction that performs well and feels comfortable.

Looking into the Finer Details

I noticed the lighter main-body fabric of the pack the first time I touched it. While distinctly nylon in feel, the material has a more substantial canvas kind of feel, too. I haven’t researched the materials science on this one, folks! But it feels like a more robust, inspiring material than Granite Gear’s ‘legacy’ packs. The next two things I noticed were tactile as well. The stretch mesh feels like it has an excellent balance of stretch, durability, breathability, retainability (of stuff in pockets), and weight. The Lineloc compression cords pull through somewhat stiffly, though they release easily with upward thumb pressure on the device. At first blush, it seems like the cordage has a bit too much bite when tightening, but with use it becomes apparent that it’s just right.

There is a zippered full-length, full-width sleeve if you are so inclined to carry a bladder inside the pack, along with two corresponding simple slash pass-throughs. I find it a lot less of a hassle to just strap the bladder on top of the pack. The top and bottom straps of each shoulder pad, and the crossing top compression straps, have ‘neat-freak bundlers,’ little plastic toggle and shock-cord thingies so you can roll up and secure your excess straps. I find the bundlers extraneous, and I’m not sure that many people would actually take the time to use them in the field. Mine will no doubt end up cut off.

Features-wise, however, the Granite Gear team did a delightful job of eliminating most of the usual excess. Aside from those features mentioned, there are two ice axe loops and, yep, that’s about it. (I consider a sternum strap standard on a shoulder harness, and personally wouldn’t consider removing one.)

Fire by Friction?

This pack’s not gonna start any fires on me! Time after time the pack just rode along, not particularly announcing its presence. That is a remarkable feat for a pack – quite a compliment. If you can just about forget the fact that you’re wearing a backpack, well, kudos to the pack! I am not a thru-hiker or an ultra-runner or a mile-monger of any kind, really, but even after 14-mile days, I was in no rush to ditch the pack.

I think the firm, comfortable, full-wrap hipbelt contributes significantly to the comfort. It seems to bear the weight of the frame quite well without developing hot spots. The frame proved plenty supportive for UL loads, and allowed for enough adjustment with load lifters to prevent shoulder soreness. My typical three-season baseweight is somewhere around ten pounds, but on one long weekend trip I brought all sorts of extra “fun” stuff… a chair, hammock, extra tarp, sparklers, a string of LED lights… and after my 13-year old pup decided she’d had enough of her dog pack, I piled her pack of food, pad, line, and doggie sundries into the extension sleeve. Even laden like the proverbial pack mule, I found that the pack not only handled the weight, but was comfortable. I’d guess that my heaviest carry has been around 30 pounds with this pack.

Given the height of the extension sleeve above the frame, I was pleasantly surprised by how secure and non-wobbly the pack was when stuffed to the brim. I anticipated having a giant lump bouncing on the back of my head with each step, but it stayed where it should, above the pack and away from me. Another pleasant surprise was the center stretch pocket. I’ve never been a fan of mesh pockets on the back of a pack, in large part because there is usually a lack of load control over the contents, but also because of the coarseness of the mesh we see in the UL world and, frankly, I’ve just had no need for them. My stuff is all organized in a few dry sacks, the tent or tarp generally just shoved into the corners of the pack. However, I found myself shoving rain gear in this front center pocket. Tossing in the sunglasses. Maybe a foam sit pad or a baggie of GORP. All this stuff is normally just right under the collar of my pack, or in the lid, but I found the slide-in stash convenient. The full height of the pocket offered good trail ‘security,’ and I still had good load control (even when I stuffed in the chair, etc.) with the three Lineloc compressors passing over the pocket. At one point, I shoved a 10×12 sil tarp in the pocket and cinched everything down… only to have the tarp balloon out from between the compression cords. It kind of made me wish for a wispy fabric panel to hold better compression along the length of the pocket, but for an object with as little mass as the tarp, such an alteration would be purely cosmetic.

Conclusion

The Blaze A.C. 60 is an excellent pack for those playing along the borders of ultralight – the majority of us. I found it adapted well to a wide variety of loads, those ranging from small daypack size (and weight) to consuming all available pack space. It provides plenty of support and weight transfer through a comfortable and efficient fit. The pack has necessary features, but few (if any) extraneous bits. The breathability of the back panel was a noticeable benefit. In all, I’ve come to think of the Blaze A.C. 60 as my ultralight workhorse and jack of all trades.

While I, and many others, find the fit to be comfortable, those who find the fit less than ideal will likely find the pack to be a bit more of a generic fit, perhaps reminiscent of a one size fits all tube sock. The analogy might not be particularly apt, but, like those socks, this pack will fit most people well. I would like to see the Granite Gear designers turn some of their efforts away from packbag design to harness and hipbelt design. It seems like the shape of the harness, in particular, needs to catch up with the increasingly contemporary designs and construction of the packs themselves. I hope that part of their consideration will include the relation of curvature as related to where the straps attach to the pack, and any effects on overall torso length. One other nitpicky aspect of design I would like to see the Granite Gear team approach is slightly longer framesheets. When carrying heavier loads, a longer (and correspondingly stiffer, thus likely heavier) framesheet would help with more efficient weight transfer. I think the design of the A.C. 60 is probably just ducky the way it is, but I would be interested in trying out the same thing with a slightly longer frame… I’d be surprised if it didn’t carry even more comfortably.

So how about it? What’s the bottom line on this pack? I like it. It carries remarkably well while remaining unobtrusive. Its minimalist but (mostly) functional features seem ideal for most ultralight to light backpackers, and I think the pack strikes an excellent balance between “rugged durability” and ultralight. I suspect that most readers would find this a good pack on the trail.

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.