The kid-sized kit: Gear should not become an end in itself. The point is to get out and enjoy the woods with kids. Ultralight gear is exciting because it enables kids to do things they could not otherwise do!
You don’t have access to view this content.
Just slightly heavier than the 740s, do the 814s finally hit all Roger’s sweet spots despite their weight?
| Manufacturer | New Balance Inc |
| Web Site | www.newbalance.com |
| Model | MT814OD |
| Last | PL-1 |
| Sizes available | US 7 – 13 in half sizes, 14, in D, 2E, 4E widths |
| Size supplied | US 10 4E (‘extra wide’) |
| Weight (quoted) | 361 g (12.7 oz) for unspecified size and width |
| Weight (measured) | 411 g (14.5 oz) for US10 4E |
| Manufactured in | China |
| MSRP | US$90 |
These come after the MT740TR shoes we reviewed recently, but they have several interesting improvements. Both my wife and I received them in size 10 4E: our preferred sizes. They are just slightly heavier than the 740s, but we think the benefits are worth it.
New Balance says of them: “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 814 is perfect for rough trails and unpredictable surfaces.” Once again, it is not all that easy to separate out spin from value, but the following points seem relevant.
First of all, they are ‘all terrain’, and that can be combined with the ‘rugged AT Tread outsole.’ Yes, they are definitely all-terrain and the sole is rugged enough for ‘rough trails and unpredictable surfaces.’ We get plenty of that off-trail. Actually, I found the sole was just a little more stiff and rugged than on the 740s, so that traversing on soft stuff (mulch, mud) was a bit easier.
Gripping in the rain.
The lug pattern on the sole, visible in the first photo, seems to be pretty good. The photo here shows my wife Sue stepping down a very wet and muddy bit of rock on a rather wet day, with no trouble at all. What is not so obvious to you, although it was very obvious to my wife at the time, was that one slip off the bottom ledge would have taken her over a 20+ metre (60+ feet) sheer cliff. But no worries: excellent grip.
There is some cushioning at the heel, but not a lot. Certainly you get a whole lot more ‘contact’ with the ground than with ‘gel-sole’ shoes, and that is critical to stable footing. That said, these would not suit the barefoot advocates.
The ‘traditional’ molded footbed is made with all sorts of little bits of arch support and heel cup etc, etc. I don’t like the attempts at interfering with my natural action. These footbeds are a long step back towards reality and good engineering: they are little more than a flat slab of good, fabric-covered foam. They fit well inside the shoe. If they get wet (wading a river maybe) you can take them out and squeeze them dry. The surface under them is fairly flat as well. This is good shoe engineering.
The external trim is also an improvement. Yes, it has been designed to have no forward-pointing bits of trim to catch on the scrub, but we expect that now. What is nice is that the rand has been built more lightly. There’s no huge rubber toe cap or bumper weighing down the toes of your feet. These shoes are light at the front, but still quite able to kick through scrub if you must.
The lacing design has no fewer than three sets of holes at the top of the ankle. Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone ever wanting to use the tightest set. I tried it briefly, and found the tension across the arch of my feet quickly caused considerable pain. Most of the time I was happy with using two sets of holes, although Sue preferred to use just one set, laced fairly loosely. Even with that fairly minimal lacing, the shoes showed no inclination to fall off her feet.
The thick cord-like laces are, I think, a backward step.The lumpy ones found on previous models were much better. These thick ones had a bit of a tendency to come loose. A quick retro-fit of some New Balance lumpy laces fixed that easily enough.
One thing the lacing pattern does not do (loud cheers) is to have a lug in the middle of the tongue at the toe end. Some shoes do this, and I find all that extra lug does is to curl the toe up in a undesirable manner. Plus, if the lug is used by the lace, it gets in the way of a gaiter hook.
The tongue is conventional in shape and just wide enough. Another 5 mm width would be nice as I seem to push the tongue sideways a bit when walking fast. But it is well padded, so I am not complaining too much. The rest of the ankle cuff is clear of my ankle bones and soft enough: it didn’t cause any hassles with rubbing.
The body, or fabric, is a multi-layer synthetic mesh. They can do very clever things with mesh construction these days. It ventilates moderately well, lets in only a small amount of dust (it happens), and seems to be very rugged. The reinforcing trim on the surface is light but robust. My wife got the bright orange version: orange mesh and orange trim on the sole face. Rather cute. I got the black fabric with red soles version.
We have worn these in the wet and in the dry, on day walks and long walks. In the second photo, most of the day it was raining and muddy. No problems: we were quite comfortable. Thick wool socks do help of course.
The two photos here were taken 24 hours apart, in our alpine region around Mt. Jagungal. At the left, we were having morning tea in the sun, without a worry in the world. On the right we were heading out enthusiastically. About 100 mm (8 in) of snow had fallen overnight, and we were not really equipped for serious snow travel. Yes, we did have enough gear to survive the day in reasonable comfort, with reserves, but why tempt the weather gods? And yes, the shoes were quite good in the fresh snow. The lug pattern meant we were not slipping at all. They were warm enough.
We think New Balance shoes are getting steadily better and better.
What’s Good
What’s Not So Good
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.
Ultralight backpacking is by far the most popular use of frameless backpacks. We provide specifications and ratings, and identify the standouts among 23 packs currently available. Overall, the majority of these packs really rock, but some meet user’s specific needs better than others.
You don’t have access to view this content.
Created to eat up miles without eating up your feet, but is Brad suitably impressed?
Hittin’ the trail in the Vasque Mindbenders… they feel pretty good.
I’m not gonna lie: When I learn of a product that a company has named “Mindbender,” I expect something pretty over the top. “Hey, man, bend my mind!” I expect magicians popping out of hats… er, wait… Of course there’s a lot of hyperbole in names and marketing, so I’m automatically a bit suspicious… and curious. Vasque says they developed the 23-ounce (650 g) Mindbender for running ultras, and the shoes seem to give good torsional support, soooo… how are the Mindbenders for ultralight backpacking?
Before we ever hit the trail, we’ve gotta try on some shoes, so we might as well start by talking about fit. My foot is just about as average as possible, a 9D/42 Euro, with no funky toes or bunions, and a moderately high arch being the only non-boring part of my foot. I found that the stiffer fabric on the toebox impinged upon the top of some toes, particularly the big toe, so I had to go up to a 9.5/42.5 shoe to get the toes out of harm’s way.
The last (form that the shoe is shaped on) is noticeably straighter than many, but I found it largely comfortable. It is a relatively low-volume toebox compared to many, and I wouldn’t want to wear this shoe with a much wider forefoot. Vasque literature describing the last depicts it as good for people with flat feet. I don’t know if flat-feet (fleet-foot?) people tend to have feet that run straight and true on the outside, with wide and bulbous toes wrapping to the inside, but that’s the fit that strikes me as best for this shoe. Although my pinkie toes are a little bit crunched, the big toes could have a little more room to slide over toward the medial plane.
As a bootfitter, one thing we commonly do is analyze how a shoe or boot laces up on a customer. This can give you an idea of how the volume of the shoe correlates to a specific foot. The Mindbenders lace up with barely any gap left on either side of the tongue, despite the slightly larger volume of my foot due to the higher arch. This suggests that perhaps there’s a bit more volume over the crest of the foot than necessary, or perhaps that gap just needs to be opened up a bit wider for more lacing control.
Looking down upon the Mindbenders, note the tight lace pattern in particular. You can sort of see the straightness of the last here, too.
The heel confuses me. On one hand (ahem: foot) it seems to fit relatively close. I think what I perceive is that the upper perimeter of the heel fits looser and feels a bit boxy. The depth of the heel cup/low point of the ankle is noticeably lower than that of other trail shoes. At first I thought I was just imagining that difference, so I measured the Mindbender and three other trail shoes I own. The Mindbender was the lowest-cut of the four I own, at 1 7⁄8 inches. Average of the other three was 2 3⁄8 inches, with one of my best-fitting shoes being at 2 5⁄8-inch depth. On-trail use showed me that this depth can be a significant factor in fit and performance.
Walking around and getting accustomed to the Mindbenders, I was struck by their comfort. There’s a good amount of cushion underfoot, but I still have some feel of the surface I’m walking on, and in a good way. It’s plush, with feel. The shoe gives me a relatively neutral stride, with a slight bit of supination (making the arch-side of the foot raise a little), which would be good for more flat-footed pronators. But the shoe strikes me as totally wearable for those with an average arch. With a normal gait on relatively flat surfaces, the heel feels noticeably secure. I can feel the upper region pulling away from my foot a little, but it doesn’t really feel like my heel will slide around at all. One fault I find with some trail shoes is an unstable heel platform, but the Mindbenders seem to keep me level and secure.
Splooshing along on a rainy afternoon.
With about 50 trail miles on the shoes, I had some stitching come out on the upper and some strange puckering on the rand. The stitching appears (and feels) to be purely cosmetic, and the puckering doesn’t seem to affect anything, so I’m not too concerned about either issue. Vasque has been very easy to work with, and I have no doubt they would have repaired or replaced the shoes if I had asked, but it struck me as completely unnecessary.
You can see the two lines of blue stitching on the upper; a few remnant threads from the other line remain in the photo center. This happened on each shoe, although on the right shoe it was on the outside.
Speaking of trail miles: I had some mixed experiences with the Mindbenders. I’ve been carrying some extra weight while gear testing, and probably carry 20-25 pounds for a weekend. With that kind of pack weight on flat terrain and trails with a few roots and rocks, the Mindbenders performed nicely. They were just… there. Supportive, but not in the way. However, in more rolling terrain and/or with rougher trails, the Mindbenders turned out not to be my shoe.
Bottom line, I couldn’t keep my foot in the shoe. As a buyer in outdoor retail for nearly a decade, I’ve worn a LOT of trail shoes, but I’m not sure if I could even count on one hand the number of shoes that came off so easily. It was so shocking that I stopped a number of times just to make sure the shoe was even on right, let alone laced and tied properly. Situations that applied some torsion to the upper, such as turning while coming down a hill, seemed to exacerbate the problem the worst. Awkward angles on rocks or foot placements were also bad news. On one short ten-mile hike, my foot must’ve slipped out of the heel at least half a dozen times. Wowzas!
Why keep product testing limited to just one product? Comparing the performance of shoe/sock combo with one waterproof/breathable sock.
Despite Vasque’s commentary, “The tailored instep and lower volume heel keeps your foot securely in place,” I found that the lower volume heel PREVENTS the shoe from keeping your foot securely in place. Indeed, as I alluded to earlier regarding heel cup depth measurements, those shoes that best control my heel have the deepest heel cups. Again, the Mindbenders had the least depth of any of my shoes. Also of note, whereas many trail shoes have a stiffened upper, rising from the lowest point of the upper to wrap around the Achilles, that section of the Mindbenders is completely unsupportive, flexy, inconsequential open-celled foam sheathed in fabric. It would be generous to say there’s 1.5 inches of depth to the top of the slightly more supportive rand on the heel. Having nearly sprained my ankle several times because of the shoe’s inability to retain my foot, I no longer wear the Mindbender as a UL backpacking trail shoe. I don’t know who would best fit the heel. I’m tempted to say people with “fat” heels, but I firmly believe the problem is primarily in the depth of the cup.
What I like most about the Mindbender is the balance of cushion and feel underfoot. The support is good, it’s just ineffective when my foot is slipping out of the shoe. I’ve also tried a surprising number of uncomfortable shoes with mesh uppers, but the Mindbender upper feels pretty good.
Striding along in comfort.
There’s definitely some room for improvement on the Mindbenders. To get a comfortable fit for most people, the forefoot should rotate toward the big toe several degrees; as it is, I can feel my pinkie toe hitting the outside while my big toe is on the verge of swimming with room. I’d recommend changing the lacing in some way… probably by shifting the opening for the tongue down each side a bit, because the volume over the crest of the foot feels like it should be sufficient. Lastly, and most markedly, the heel cup really needs more depth. Another possibility would be to add slightly less depth, and stiffen the upper reaches of the heel cup.
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/BPL has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.
Investing in both daughters, preparing for the hike, and executing the first 700 miles has kept Eric busy. Sunshine’s no slouch either!
BackpackingLight sponsored a father/daughter team on their PCT thru-hike in the summer of 2011. To get the full skinny on what a dynamic duo they are, read their first installment of adventure, Eleven Years Old on the PCT, then their second, We’re Going to Disneyland! (this article), then their third, Sunshine in the Sierra Mountains.
We’re going to Disneyland!
As Sunshine and I prepared for our epic 2,652 mile adventure on the PCT, I noticed a change in my youngest daughter, Annika. Some called it jealousy, but she had a legitimate complaint. Sunshine and I had this great connection between us as we prepared, and we were receiving packages every day from our 19 sponsors. It was like Christmas for us, but she was feeling left out. I was starting to hear her speak negatively about herself, and she was clearly feeling less than special.
Our bank manager agreed to send Sunshine goodies for the trail, and Annika sheepishly hung her head and said, “I like candy too.” The manager was so kind, and said “Annika, would you like to be sponsored too?” She then bought them both the same things. However, to complicate matters further, the friend (Shrek) who was dropping us off at the PCT Kick Off event wanted to stop by Disneyland for Sunshine on our way there. The hike was one thing, but how do you take one child to Disneyland and not the other? As far as I know, there is no forgiveness for that!
While laying sleepless in bed like a little kid waiting for the trip to begin (it was like the night before Christmas for over a month), it came to me! We’d bring Annika with us to Kick Off! Win, win, win! She comes to Disneyland. She comes to Kick Off and becomes acquainted with the trail community, and she can see what all the excitement is all about for a thru hike. Shrek agreed to let her ride down with us. I called our friend Chipmunk, who was flying to Kick Off, and she was more than happy to fly Annika home afterward.
(left) Annika on our own adventure this spring. (right) Sunshine, me, and Annika (age 8) on the way to Kick Off.
(left) Annika and Sunshine at Disneyland. (right) The way to Annika’s heart is definitely through her stomach. Remember the applesauce?
Crisis averted! Annika was immediately engaged once I announced that she would be joining us for both Disneyland and Kick Off. She joined us in packing, preparing, and of course buying essential supplies like treats, hiking clothes, and a butterfly net. She and Teresa, my wife, will be supporting us through Oregon in the month of August. Friends and family began sending her packages of camp activities and goodies to keep her busy while waiting on us to come out to the next road.
Kick Off was awesome! It was like camping with 700 of your closest friends. I have always found it difficult to find like-minded people to hike with in our area, but that’s not a problem at Kick Off. Everyone dresses the same, has the same type of tents, wakes up early to get a jump start on their hike, and can spend hours telling you how they cut 5 ounces from their base weight. It’s kind of like a weird hiking cult, except you don’t have to drink any poisoned Kool-Aid… just Gatorade.
Annika had so much fun with us. Of course she loved the excitement of the trip down and Disneyland, but she absolutely loved chatting the ears off the hikers at Kick Off. The Pearl Girls watched her while Sunshine and I knocked out our first 20-mile day from the border. She is now excited about hiking and even asked to go on family hikes each day when she and her mother visited us at Hiker Town last month.
Balls and Sunshine at the Mexican border, day one.
Overall we have been blessed with cool and mild weather, though the first few days were very hot! We had the opportunity to experience the long slog from Scissors Crossing to the third pipe gate water cache, which is the hottest, driest stretch of the PCT. It was 80 degrees by 6:00 AM and gained a degree every ten minutes until topping out at 97 degrees, all in direct sunlight. We started at first light and took several breaks, including three hours off at the water cache. We then had a pleasant stroll into the cool evening as the sun went down.
I’ve still got Sunshine on a windy day.
After the first few days of high temps, it really cooled down and, even on warmer days, we had a pleasant breeze. This weather pattern followed us through the rest of the desert. We did get some high winds on a few nights, and it even snowed once and rained twice while passing over the mountains. Our original intent was to hike 15-mile days, but 20+ miles was a more natural fit for us.
This cool weather allowed us to comfortably bump up our daily average to 25-mile days, including two 30-milers. Sunshine is very driven and seeks to beat her previous distance record whenever we get a chance.
Sunshine has had a few blisters on the tips of her toes, but they healed almost immediately after popping them. She had a head cold at the beginning of the hike, but recovered quickly without complaining. My feet were doing great until my running shoes wore out around mile 300. I continued to push them to 519 miles and paid the price with a large nagging blister under the ball of my foot that persisted for a week. On our first 30-mile day I rolled my ankle with only three miles left to camp. In a futile effort to regain my balance, I spun my upper body to the left while planting my right trekking pole firmly into the ground. The pole broke in half, and I rolled into the brush end over end. I severely strained my left ankle, but continued to our intended camp that night and walked a painful 10 miles the next afternoon. It began to slowly heal over the next few weeks as we resumed our normal milage.
Accident-prone: (left) my ankle, (center) my trekking pole after injuring my ankle, (right) my foot after extracting a cactus spine.
Ah, magic makes it better!
One fun tradition is everyone’s trail name. Normally you are awarded a trail name after some crazy event happens to you. Some of this year’s names are: Crumbs, Free Range, Push, Jack Sparrow, Hikeroholic, Drop Dead, Spidey, No Amp, Blood Bath (yes, there was a small accident), Top Shelf, Stumbling Goat, and Thumper. Speed Bump was road walking when he passed out from the heat, landing perfectly perpendicular on the road, all while wearing safety yellow. Phantom Jimbrick is from Australia, where “Jimbrick” means “turd.” I’ll let you use your imagination on that story.
Drop and Roll caught her down jacket on fire and really had to use the drop and roll method that we were all taught in elementary school, but never have to use. Let’s not forget about the Three Bears: Papa Bear, Momma Bear, and Baby Bear. That’s right, Momma Bear is carrying one-year-old Baby Bear on her back from Mexico to Canada, while Papa Bear carries an enormous pack with most of the family’s gear. Wired actually mails her laptop to each resupply stop so she can catch up on all her TV shows. She also has trouble sitting still. Pepper and Mace from Israel decided it would be a good idea to test their bear spray on each other. It really didn’t work out as they had hoped. Air Lift was air lifted off Fuller Ridge for food poisoning. Grenade put a stove fire out by leaping on it with his foam sleeping mat. Skinny-D was caught skinny dipping on her first day.
All the hikers out here are so amazing. My story of losing my job just before the trail is not a unique one. Many are overcoming physical limitations and refuse to let tragedy, surgery, or injury hold them back. There are many war vets finding peace with themselves and others in the quiet wilderness. Still others are just starting out life with a firm grasp of who they are and what they are capable of.
Trail magic ranges from a cache of water to fruit, soda, beer, or junk food to full on barbeques. The first few days after Kick Off, there were still a lot of the previous year’s hikers in the area, so we had magic at most road crossings for a while. In fact there was so much beer the first three days, we thought maybe the PCT meant “Pub Crawl Trail!” Actually, everyone has been very responsible and respectful while enjoying libations around Sunshine. It seems just as we are having a hard day, magic shows up.
(left) What, desert asparagus? (right) Trail magic!
Trail angels provide essential acts of kindness such as, but not limited to: rides to and from town, showers, laundry, meals, mail drops, and some even let you spend the night in their home. Some angels have done this for years while others just help at the spur of the moment when they see a need. Our new friend Lizzy had recently been wronged by some people in her life. While at confession she told her priest that she wanted revenge on these people. He told her that if she wanted to get over the anger and bitterness, she would need to commit a random act of kindness for a stranger. The next day, three smelly hikers (Goose, Sunshine, and I) walked into her town. She brought us to her home, let us clean up, said we could help ourselves in the fridge, we watched a movie, got a good night’s sleep, she made us a wonderful breakfast, and drove us back to the trail in the morning. Thank you Lizzy, and thank you Father Frank!
While staying with another set of angels, Terry had her granddaughters come over to play with Sunshine. It was nice to see her be a kid for the evening when the trail often demands her to be more mature. Sunshine’s favorite town experience was riding a former Disneyland horse. Donna taught her riding skills while letting her ride in the corral by herself.
Sunshine has no trouble getting rides of any kind. Me, on the other hand…
It is so interesting to see the contrast in human nature. We have seen the very best in people and the worst. What could possibly make someone so angry and bitter that they would flip an 11-year-old girl the bird for trying to hitch a ride back to the trail? Weren’t we intended to be kind and helpful to one another? Hiking the PCT has given us the unique opportunity to see this contrast from the outside and re-evaluate what we want out of life. Is chasing the “American Dream” really worth all the pain and anger we see in people? We were meant to be surrounded by the beauty and peace of creation and the ones we love, not have our souls crushed by a greedy, heartless boss. When they told me to pick a career according to what I love to do, I thought “I love making money.” Boy, I messed that one up. If you’re not quite ready to chuck your career for a five- to six-month thru hike, I recommend the 220-mile John Muir trail. The PCT shares 180 remote and wild miles with it. I believe it is the best 180 miles of the PCT. We are learning so much about life and ourselves from the kindness of others. I know this experience will help Sunshine make good life decisions in the future.
(left) Sunshine rocking out. (right) Crossing Fuller Ridge.
The trail is full of learning opportunities. We spend the entire day discussing the history, geology, biology, and botany of the lands we pass through. There are so many educated and interesting people on the trail to add their knowledge to our “classroom.” We have hiked with two math teachers who have taught Sunshine math games to keep her sharp. She has been completing the math and spelling worksheets provided by her teacher. We read together each day and are now uploading books to my iPod to save on pack weight. Social science seems to unfold all around us during the day. We have already solved the entire world’s political and economic problems between us. She said I should run for president. We spent an entire day walking through world history starting with Abraham and Isaac through present day and how that history has shaped today’s world. When meeting hikers from foreign countries (about 20% of the hikers are foreign), one of her first questions is “What is your country’s economy like right now in comparison to the US?”
I was cursing our ZPacks Hexamid Twin tent all night during our first bad wind storm of 50+ MPH winds. We finally left the tent down so as to not damage it. Later the next day, I learned that the only tents spared from being blown over were the heaviest free-standing ones, so I could have saved my curses. We learned to shorten our guy lines, make our trekking pole more vertical, and Sunshine now puts big rocks on the stakes while I’m setting up. The tent has proved itself now in two rainy wind storms. For an 11-ounce two-person tent, you just can’t beat it! I do recommend this tent.
Sunshine loves her waterproof 9-ounce Backpacking Light Cocoon Hoody. While setting up in the rain one evening, it kept her warm and dry while my UL MontBell Down Jacket was rendered worthless in seconds once wet.
(left) Our ZPacks Hexamid Twin tent. (right) Backpacking Light’s two-pound Absaroka.
Our 20F and 30F MontBell Spiral Down Hugger sleeping bags have been more than warm enough for us so far. They are super comfortable, and we expect to be plenty warm in the Sierra with some added clothing that we haven’t had to use yet.
Sunshine also loves her 2-pound Backpacking Light Absaroka pack. It has just the right amount of padding. Its internal frame and suspension supports her 15-pound total load perfectly. The top center compression strap even serves as a load lifter. Her only complaint: it needs a port for her drink tube to exit the pack.
The iPod Touch upon which I’m writing this article has been handy. For no monthly charge, we have been journaling in the wilderness, then sending it in via the internet when we get to town. We can talk face to face with her mother and little sister with the Face Time app, check email and Facebook, read books, listen to music of course, take and send the pictures you see here, and even order gear to be sent ahead. Talk about multiuse ultralight!
Sunshine is also excited to use her ultralight ice axe for the first time in the Sierra.
Eagle Rock.
Like most, after only driving by, we thought the desert would be harsh and ugly. That just isn’t true. Upon closer inspection, it is more of a rugged beauty with explosions of vibrant color and life mixed into the dry and rocky back drop. We had no idea how many different species of cacti there were. Everything in the desert is sharp, so choose your sleeping mat location wisely.
We have seen much more wildlife than expected in the desert. We have seen many large deer, ten snakes (including four rattlers), countless lizards and horny toads, rats, mice, squirrels, a fox, desert tortoise, quails, dozens of jackrabbits, and what we think was a ferret. We hear coyotes nearby every night, but have only seen one.
One night while hiking to avoid the hot day, we heard what sounded like a motocross bike, but as we got closer in the dark, it became louder and more organic sounding. Just as I realized that it was a wild boar, Sunshine nervously said, “Dad, I can see its eyes.” We continued to bravely walk past, pretending not to see it so as to not provoke it. As we passed, it began to stomp and squeal loudly, but never charged.
Above Idyllwild.
Our view from the tent.
As of the 10th of June, we have walked 703 miles to Kennedy Meadows, just south of where the John Muir Trail dissects the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. We have left the desert that we’ve come to know so well and are now in the spectacular Sierra mountains. We will be crossing through snow and raging streams and climbing passes between 10,000 and 13,200 feet every day. We are excited for the new adventures and beautiful views, but a bit nervous about the added difficulty and dangers. Keep us in your prayers, but know that we are being safe and cautious. Our plan is to slow down, travel in groups, and take a day off at every supply point. Once we are through the majestic and breathtaking Sierra we can kick up our milage to make it home for middle school in mid-September. Thank you again Backpacking Light for your sponsorship! Thank you to all our readers for your kind words of encouragement after our last article!
(left) Filtering water. (right) Yep, we slept in that.
Many had asked how they could contribute to our journey, so I added a PayPal donate button on our “About” page on our trail journal. I especially enjoyed hearing that we were an inspiration for other parents to get their children out more. We also enjoyed seeing your pictures and hearing some of your family stories. Please keep following our amazing adventure!
We will tell you all about our exciting tales while in the Sierra in our next installment. In the meantime, please take your kids on some wilderness adventures of your own this summer and tell us all about it in your comments. Two of the greatest gifts we can give our children is our time and the wilderness.
Miles to go before we sleep.
Everything boils down to a few simple rules that can encompass a surprising range of scenarios!
You don’t have access to view this content.
The Aquilo is the mouse that roared. I expected it to be a smaller frameless backpack based on its specifications, but it jumped into the high volume pack category, then it came out on top in that group.
Elemental Horizons Aquilo on a summer backpack in the southern Rockies. The newly introduced Aquilo has a removable contoured tubular aluminum stay, plenty of volume, and an excellent compression system.
Elemental Horizons, founded by Matthew Lagas-Rivera, is a new, small company offering lightweight backpacks and accessories. The Aquilo is a frameless backpack with an available contoured aluminum tubular stay. At 31.5 ounces (893 g), the Aquilo weighs twice as much as the lightest frameless backpacks I tested for our Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011, but for lightweight backpacking, where the Aquilo properly fits, its weight, suspension system, features, and load carrying capability are impressive.
| Year/Model | 2011 Elemental Horizons Aquilo (http://elementalhorizons.com/) |
| Style | Top loading frameless backpack with removable stay system, drybag closure with two side straps and one top compression strap |
| Volume | Size Large tested. Specified volume: 3200 cubic inches (52 L) Measured volume: 4090 cubic inches (67 L), includes pockets and extension collar |
| Weight | Measured weight: 29.5 oz (836 g) without stay or accessories, 34.1 oz (967g) with stay Manufacturer specification: 31.5 oz (893 g) size M for latest version |
| Sizes Available | Unisex S, M, L |
| Fabrics | Pack body and pockets are 70d 1.9 oz/yd2 (64 g/m2) urethane coated ripstop nylon; bottom and reinforcements are 420d urethane coated diamond ripstop nylon; 7 oz/yd2 (237 g/m2) spacer mesh on hipbelt, backpanel, and shoulder straps |
| Features | Sternum strap with whistle buckle, frontpanel bungie system, full height fabric front pocket with elastic binding, four fabric side pockets with drawcord closure, three compression straps each side, 12-in (30-cm) extension collar, drybag type top closure with one top compression strap, one ice axe loop, haul loop, interior zippered stash pocket, removable inside backpanel foam pad/sit pad, load lifters, hipbelt stabilizer straps, center pull hipbelt tightening |
| Volume to Weight Ratio | 139 in3/oz (based on 4090 in3 and measured weight of 29.5 oz (size Large) |
| Maximum Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity | 30 lb (13.6 kg) estimated comfortable load for an average person carrying the pack all day |
| Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio | 14.1 (based on 30 lb and a measured weight of 2.13 lb with stay) |
| MSRP | US$180 |
| Options | Contoured tubular aluminum stay, three hipbelt sizes, hipbelt pockets, shoulder strap water bottle pouch |
First things first; although the Aquilo is specified at 2700 cubic inches (44.2 L) for size Medium and 3200 cubic inches (52 L) for size Large (which I tested), I measured the actual volume of the Aquilo (size Large) to be a whopping 4090 cubic inches (67 L), which is 28% larger than specified. Matthew later mentioned that the specified volume is for the main compartment only. The key point here is that the Aquilo is a large volume frameless backpack, well suited for lightweight backpacking, but it has way too much volume for ultralight backpacking. I would love to see a smaller version of this pack for ultralight backpacking.
Views of the production Elemental Horizons Aquilo pack: The frontpanel (far left) has a tall fabric front pocket and bungie attachment system. The backpanel (photo 2) is 3D mesh and has a removable foam pad inside the pack. Each side (photo 3) has two fabric pockets (a tall pocket and a short one) and three compression straps. The pack’s top (far right) has a drybag type closure with two side straps and one top strap (not two as shown).
Suspension system: The Aquilo has an available contoured tubular aluminum stay (left) that slides into sleeves on the inside of the backpanel and anchors to the hipbelt. The flap that holds the stay in place has a zippered stash pocket. The pack’s suspension system (right) is sturdy, well padded, and has load lifters and hipbelt stabilizers. Much of the Aquilo’s weight is padding in the backpanel, shoulder straps, and hipbelt.
Features: The Aquilo has a huge nearly full height fabric front pocket (left) and the current model has two side pockets on each side (center) instead of one as shown. Useful accessories are hipbelt pockets (shown below) that are available in two sizes, and a shoulder strap water bottle holder (right).
This photo shows the main issue I had with the Aquilo – the pack has much more volume than specified, so my gear kit filled only about half of the available volume. The pack is compressed as much as it will go and I still could not fill it up. (Note: the current version of the pack has three compression straps on each side, which should eliminate the bulge.) I was trying to use the Aquilo for ultralight backpacking, since I understood at the time that its volume is 3200 cubic inches (52 L). I later measured the volume at 4090 cubic inches (67 L).
As shown in the photo, even with the pack’s compression system fully tightened, the pack still has too much volume for my ultralight gear kit. With the main compartment partially full, the pack’s top closure straps don’t work very well (they slip), and I had to criss-cross them to tighten the top down.
I finally measured the Aquilo’s actual volume as part of my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report (reported in Part 2A), and was amazed to see the final outcome – 4090 cubic inches (67 L) for size Large, which is 890 cubic inches (14.6 L) over the manufacturer specification. The total volume includes all of the pockets and the extension collar, as is customary for frameless backpacks. For comparison, that’s about the same volume as the GoLite Pinnacle and Six Moon Designs Starlite, which are clearly in the lightweight backpack category. The lightbulb moment here is that the Aquilo is a larger volume backpack appropriate for lightweight backpacking, not ultralight backpacking.
The manufacturer is addressing the issues I mentioned and has added the following: an extra compression strap to each side of the pack (six total), two tall side pockets (for a total of four side pockets) so a hydration reservoir can be carried on the outside of the pack, an internal sleeping pad sleeve, removable internal stash pocket so it can be used as a wallet, one compression strap on top of the pack, and a Velcro attachment for hipbelt pockets. These changes correct all of the issues I raised and really zero in on creating the “perfect” pack for lightweight backpacking.
In my load carrying capacity tests, reported in Part 2B of our Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report, the Aquilo came out on top. With its stay inserted, it supported a 30-pound (13.6-kg) load with minimal pack torso collapse. The reason for this is the Aquilo’s stay actually connects to the back of the hipbelt, which is a first. Other larger volume frameless backpacks have removable stays available that slide into sleeves on the inside of the backpanel, but they do not anchor to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight. Rather, they simply stiffen the pack and assist with weight transfer via a “virtual frame.” Although the Aquilo’s stay connects to the hipbelt, it still does not create a true internal frame backpack with a built-in frame.
One issue with the Aquilo is its side pockets extend to the bottom of the pack, where the mesh bottom (for drainage) is exposed to abrasion. The bottom of the pack is made of durable 420 denier urethane coated diamond ripstop nylon. Note the center pull hipbelt tightening system and optional zippered hipbelt pockets.
Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 4 (coming soon). The closest comparison is the Six Moon Designs Starlite, which is slightly lighter, has slightly more volume, and costs the same.
As noted, I had difficulties using the Aquilo for ultralight backpacking. However, once I measured its true volume and moved it into the lightweight frameless packs category, it became a standout in that category.
I tested a pre-production version of the Aquilo, and provided feedback that has been incorporated into the production version of the pack. I have not seen the production pack as of this writing, but photos supplied by the manufacturer show that all of my issues have been corrected. The production version will retain its large volume, and add many significant improvements with minimal effect on pack weight. Pack weight without the stay will be 31.5 ounces (893 g) for size Medium and 33 ounces (936 g) for size Large. With the mentioned improvements, the production pack will be very competitive with the Six Moon Designs Starlite and other frameless packs for lightweight backpacking.
The Aquilo weighs about two pounds, which sounds heavy, but its weight is modest when you consider the pack’s suspension system and features. For lightweight backpacking, the Aquilo is an excellent choice for comfortably carrying loads up to about 30 pounds (13.6 kg), providing plenty of room for a larger volume gear kit, and compressing down when needed. In Part 2B of my SOTMR I compared the load carrying capacity of packs with removable stays with a lightweight internal frame backpack (the Osprey Exos 58), and found the Aquilo matched the performance of the Exos. And the Aquilo weighs about 10 ounces (283 g) less.
Overall, if you are looking for a great performing lightweight pack for lightweight backpacking (base weight under 20 pounds/9.1 kg, total weight under 30 pounds/13.6 kg), the Aquilo is definitely worth a closer look. For a new pack introduction, it looks like the Aquilo nails it.
What’s Good
What’s Not So Good
Recommendations For Improvement
We “lab” test thirteen frameless backpacks to compare their performance in terms of load carrying capability. We also address the debate of whether a coiled or folded sleeping pad is better for creating a “virtual frame” for weight transfer to the hips. And we compare frameless backpacks with stays inserted to lightweight internal frame backpacks. Our data reveal some distinct differences among the packs and a few surprises.
You don’t have access to view this content.
These lightweight synthetic baselayers are remarkably warm for their weight and highly versatile.
The zipper on the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Expedition Weight Hoodie extends to the side of the hood, and the hood covers your head like a balaclava. The top and pants make excellent cabin wear.
The Eddie Bauer First Ascent line of performance clothing is attracting a lot of attention. The garments are well designed, utilize cutting edge materials, perform well, and are a great value. I previously reviewed the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Downlight Sweater, which is an excellent balance of quality materials, lightweight, warmth, and value. I was attracted to the Eddie Bauer Expedition Baselayers for the same reasons.
Although these warmer baselayers are primarily intended for winter conditions, they are also appropriate for summer backpacking in the mountains, where nighttime temperatures can drop below freezing. So, how do they shape up in terms of versatility?
| Manufacturer | Eddie Bauer (www.eddiebauer.com) |
| Year/Model | 2010 Expedition Weight Baselayers |
| Style | ¼-Zip Top, Hoodie, Pant |
| Weight | Size men’s Large tested. Measured Weights: ¼-Zip Top 9.1 oz (258 g), Hoodie 10.6 oz (301 g), Pant 8.4 oz (238 g) Manufacturer Specification: ¼-Zip Top 9.8 oz (278 g), Hoodie Top 11.5 oz (326 g), and Pant 8.2 oz (232 g), for size Medium |
| Sizes | Men’s S-XXL plus tall Women’s XS-XL plus tall |
| Fabrics | Polartec Power Dry |
| Features | Grid pattern on inside, ¼-Zip Top has 12-in (30-cm) zipper; Hoodie has 16-in (40-cm) zipper to side of hood plus a chest pocket with 6-in (15-cm) zipper; Pant has elastic waistband |
| MSRP | ¼-Zip Top: US$79 Hoodie: US$99 Pant: US$69 |
There are a lot of performance baselayers around, and most of them are quite good, but how do you choose one that provides the most warmth for its weight? One thing to watch for is the amount of Lycra or Spandex in the fabric composition; these materials add stretch, but they also add weight. Some stretch is good, but fabrics with a lot of Spandex are quite heavy. The things I look for are: 1) polyester, which is lighter and dries quickly; 2) a waffle pattern on the inside that traps more air; 3) a smooth exterior so other garments slide over it easily; and 4) a minimum of Lycra or Spandex, elastic cuffs, or zippered pockets which add weight. The Eddie Bauer Expedition Weight Baselayers meet these criteria fairly well; albeit they are 7% Spandex, and the hoodie version does have one zippered chest pocket.
This review covers the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Expedition Weight ¼-Zip Top (left), Expedition Weight Hoodie (center), and Expedition Weight Pant (right). All are available in men’s and women’s versions and tall sizes.
The fabric is Polartec Power Dry, which is 93% polyester and 7% Spandex. The inside has a waffle pattern (left), and the outside surface is smooth (right).
Expedition Weight Hoodie and Pant worn at a ski-in mountain cabin in February.
I tested the Expedition Baselayers while winter camping, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, fall and winter day hiking, fall and spring backpacking, fall car camping, ice fishing, a multi-day ski trip to a mountain cabin, and even a fall houseboat trip on Lake Powell. I wore the tops over another baselayer or next to skin, and I wore them as a single layer or part of a layering system in really cold weather. Needless to say, the baselayers got a lot of testing in a variety of conditions!
Each of the garments has a trim fit. I am 6 feet (183 cm) tall and 170 pounds (77 kg), with a 34-inch (86-cm) waist and 31-inch (79-cm) inseam and size men’s Large fits me perfectly. The sleeves and pant legs are plenty long in size Regular, and a tall version is available for both men and women.
The garments feel remarkably warm the minute I put them on. They provide a lot of warmth for their weight. The most efficient garments weight-wise are the simple ¼-Zip Top and Pant, which together weigh about a pound (454 g). Lightweight down garments, like the MontBell Down Inner Jacket and Pant, provide more warmth for their weight, but they are much more expensive and are not intended to be worn next to skin.
I tested the ¼-Zip Top while hiking uphill carrying a backpack up a local mountain, where I gained 1,500 feet (457 m) over 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in 45 minutes; and repeated the hike at different temperatures ranging from 5 to 50 °F (-15 to 10 °C). I found that the top is comfortable to hike in only at cooler temperatures, up to about 35 °F (2 °C). The front zipper helps to regulate my temperature, and the top dries out quickly. In colder temperatures the top performed very well under a shell or under a light down jacket and shell. I mainly wore the pants in camp and in my sleeping bag. The top and bottom are also excellent cabin wear in mixed company.
These baselayers are well designed, fit very well, and are remarkably warm for their weight. They are also very versatile; I wore them by themselves and in a number of layering systems with excellent results.
I found them too warm to hike in, except for below freezing temperatures. While backpacking or other outdoor activities, the top is very useful for hiking in cooler overcast or windy conditions, and both the top and bottom for wearing in camp.
While I don’t usually prefer to wear a hoodie, I note that the hoodie version is very well designed. The zipper curves to the side of the hood rather than the center, and the hood covers all but my face. For people who like a hooded top, this is a good one.
Overall, the Eddie Bauer Expedition Weight Baselayers are an excellent balance of warmth, light weight, comfort, and value.
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.
Another fine member of the lightweight low-cut New Balance jogger family.
New Balance MR740TR
These come after the MT876OR shoes we reviewed recently, but they have several differences, apart from the normal cosmetic changes. We received two pairs, both size 10 4E, so my wife and I could both try them out.
New Balance says of them “Especially well-suited for distance runners in search of mild stability, the 740 trail runner features a medial post for pronation control and ABZORB cushioning in both the heel and forefoot.” I am not sure what that really means, but the ‘mild stability’ bit suggests that the shoes are not designed to take control of your foot and distort it into a shape or motion some ‘expert’ thinks you should have. Needless to say, I approve of the reluctance to interfere with your natural foot mechanics.
| Manufacturer | New Balance Inc (www.newbalance.com) |
| Model | MR740TR |
| Last | PL-1 |
| Sizes available | US 7 – 13 in half sizes, 14, in D, 2E, 4E widths |
| Size supplied | US 10 4E (‘extra wide’) |
| Weight (quoted) | 317 g (11.2 oz) for unspecified size and width |
| Weight (measured) | 339 g (12.8 oz) for US10 4E |
| Manufactured in | China |
| MSRP | US$90 (but now mainly from distributors) |
Starting from the bottom, there is a small change to the lug pattern. I am not sure whether the pattern is better or worse: it certainly grips well and has given good traction to both of us. The photo here shows us at the top of a steep gully on a very wet day – the river went up by 10 metres. I had no problems.
Gripping in the rain.
There has been a trend in recent years towards a heel with air space inside it. You can just see this in the first photo as hollows going in from the side. The hollows are meant to provide more spring or cushioning. You can go to extremes with this in the form of gel inserts, but they destroy the ‘feel’ your heel has for the ground, and as a result can lead to ankle injuries. Fortunately the heels on the MT740TR strike a nice balance and do not interfere with feeling the ground.
The internal sole is definitely different from some of the recent joggers reviewed. It feels much firmer. This gives much better traction on loose and muddy surfaces, although it probably ‘smears’ (rock climbing term) less well on extreme rock. It also blocks sharp rocks from poking your sole around. As I am more concerned about wet and mud than rock climbing, this is a plus for me.
Then we come to the external trim. I was critical of some previous models as they had a bit of the trim pointed forwards, so it could catch on stuff and get pulled off. The rand and trim on these MT740TR shoes avoids all those problems, and is very well designed. Has New Balance taken heed of our comments? Who knows?
Some previous versions have had a hard PU bumper at the front, which is fine except that it makes the front of the shoe just a bit heavy. That can make for a bit of toe dragging when you are tired or running. These shoes do not have that problem: the toe is light.
The lacing is designed with two sets of holes at the ankle region: you can see the holes in the first photo. With our high arches, the highest hole – the one nearest the back of the shoe, is completely superfluous! I tried using that hole for a couple of minutes, but the pressure on my arch created pain in that short time. Only using one hole and having the laces fairly loose gave me good retention and no discomfort.
The tongue is fairly conventional in shape, but not quite minimal in size. In practice, it is fine: I just worry about it slewing sideways after a few hours. Some tongues do that, however, this tongue seems to stay in place.
Some shoes give a bit of a problem at the top of the rim at the back. This happens when the top cuts in too much at the back. The idea seems to be that if the back curves in lots it will grip your heel well, but that assumes you have a really pointy heel. We don’t: we have fairly straight Achilles tendons there. However, these shoes were not loose at the heel and did not give us any rubbing at the top either.
There is the usual moulded footbed inside the shoe. It is fairly basic with a not very prominent curl up at the arch. That is not enough to create any problem for those who abhor arch supports. It is thin: perhaps a little more thickness and quality would be good?
The interior of the MT876 shoes had a problem with the lining being not fully attached. These MR740TR shoes have a different interior that has none of those problems: it is smooth and comfortable. Both the lining and the removable footbed are quite comfortable.
Lunch time, mid summer.
We have worn these in the wet and in the dry. In the very wet in fact, as you can see in the second photo! Yes, of course our feet got wet, but it really didn’t seem to matter, and the mesh body allowed the water to drain out easily.
We have also worn them in the dry. The photo above shows a late lunch after a long morning spent bashing down a small valley to the ocean. You wouldn’t think such an inconspicuous valley could present such rough country, but it sure did! I have to say that at no stage were we really conscious of our shoes: they were light, gripped well, and were comfortable. The scrub and the cliffs were another matter…
Will Rietveld also had a pair of these to test in size 12 4E. Unfortunately size 12 was a shade large for Will, but that’s better than a size too small! Will’s notes include the following:
“I normally request a size 12 in most shoes to get the extra width, but I find with wide NB shoes I am better off to request the exact size I need, which is 11.5. The size 12 has too much volume for my feet, so I have to wear two pairs of socks in them, or real heavy ones plus a liner, to fill them up. Then they fit snugly and do very well on the trail.
I wore them on two day hikes and one six-day backpacking trip. They are more flexible than the 814 [which will appear in a later Spotlite] and have the same aggressive tread. I wear them with thick cushy socks for a dialed-in fit. I like them better than the 814 because they don’t have as much heel lift. The heel cup is a bit loose for me. Trail dust does go through the mesh outer, so my feet get dirty. I wore them a lot while hiking off-trail and they did as well as any of the mid-height boots [we were field testing at the time, except for the Salomon Fastpacker].
Overall, it is refreshing to wear shoes that really are wide, rather than pseudo-wide, and also very light. They have good cushioning, good support, good motion control, and great traction.”
What’s Good
What’s Not So Good
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.
We put eleven different wood-burning models to the test. Check out which performed best, and which stove had catastrophic failure during testing. But don’t worry: no forests were harmed in the making of this SOTM!
You don’t have access to view this content.
Terra Nova maintains their reputation with the latest “lightest double-wall shelter in the world,” weighing just over 1 pound. This one has a Cuben Fiber canopy and floor.
The Terra Nova website proudly states: “GUINNESS WORLD RECORD: The Laser Ultra 1 has been awarded the Guinness World Record for the lightest double-wall shelter in the world!” Well, I guess that gets our attention. The Laser Ultra 1 is a one-person double-wall tent with a manufacturer specified trail weight of 17.5 ounces (496 g), which is equivalent to the lightest single-wall tent I know of, the Gossamer Gear One. The Laser Ultra has a Cuben Fiber shell and floor, with a thin nylon fabric interior, and improved ventilation. Is this the Lamborghini of ultralight solo tents, or just the winner of a low weight contest?
The Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 on an early spring backpacking trip in southern Utah.
| Year/Manufacturer/Model | 2010 Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 (www.terra-nova.co.uk) |
| Style | Three-season, one-person, double-wall, non-freestanding tent with floor, one side entry door with vestibule |
| Included | Tent body, one aluminum pole with stuff sack, 12 1-gram titanium stakes with stuff sack, pole hood, storage bag |
| Fabrics | Proprietary: shell and floor are “Ultra fabric less than 0.6 oz/yd2 (less than 20 g/m2)” Cuben Fiber, 3000 mm; liner is ultralight nylon fabric and mesh |
| Poles and Stakes | One 7.55 mm Scandium Alloy aluminum center hoop pole, two end carbon fiber struts, 12 1-gram titanium stakes |
| Floor Dimensions and Interior Headroom | Manufacturer specifications: 85 in (216 cm) long x 29 in (74 cm) wide at head end x 34 in (86 cm) wide at center; 34 in (86 cm) maximum height, 15 in (38 cm) end height (dimensions verified by Backpacking Light) |
| Features | Lightweight fabrics, large side entry door, two end vents, ends roll up for improved ventilation |
| Packed Size | 14 x 3 in (35 x 8 cm) |
| Total Weight | Measured weight: 20.7 oz (587 g) Manufacturer specification: 20.5 oz (581 g) |
| Trail Weight | Measured weight: 19.7 oz (558 g) Manufacturer specification: 17.5 oz (496 g) (excludes stuff sacks) |
| Protected Area | Floor area: 16.7 ft2 (1.6 m2) Vestibule area: 3.8 ft2 (0.35 m2) Total protected area: 20.5 ft2 (1.9 m2) |
| Protected Area/Trail Weight Ratio | 16.6 ft2/lb (3.41 m2/kg) |
| MSRP | US$700 |
The Laser Ultra 1 is as light as it gets for a one-person double-wall tent, with a measured trail weight of 19.7 ounces (558 g) and total weight of 20.7 ounces (587 g). The shell (and floor) is a very lightweight Cuben Fiber, which Terra Nova calls their “Ultra fabric.”
The tent includes 12 “1-gram titanium stakes,” which help to bring the weight down. I included a toothpick in the photo for comparison. Do you want to entrust a US$1000+ tent to these stakes? I don’t think so!
The 1-gram stakes readily pull out when the tent flaps, and are easy to lose, so the first thing I did was to replace the stakes with the lightest staking setup that I consider adequate, which is eight 6-inch (15-cm) titanium shepherd hook stakes, two Easton 6.25-inch (16-cm) tubular aluminum stakes (for the ends), and two guylines (for the main hoop pole). This adds 2 ounces (57 g) to the weight of the tent, bringing the trail weight up to 21.7 ounces (615 g) and total weight up to 22.7 ounces (644 g).
Views of the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1: A side view (top left) shows that the Laser Ultra is a tunnel tent design with one hoop pole in the center. Each end (top right) has a vertical carbon fiber strut and four staking points. The top view (bottom left) shows the tent’s proportions. Looking inside the door (bottom right), there is large zippered entry into the nylon fabric liner. The top of the door is mesh, and there are mesh ventilation panels in the ends of the tent.
The tent interior has adequate floor space for one person plus gear, and gear in the vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent.
Video tour of the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1.
Canyon bottom camp in southern Utah. I placed rocks on the tent stakes to secure them in the sand.
The Laser Ultra 1 is easy to set up: insert the center hoop pole in its sleeve, stake one end guyline, stake the other end guyline, place three stakes at the base of the tent on both ends, stake the center pole guylines. Set-up takes only a couple of minutes. Since the tent floor is thin Cuben Fiber, a groundsheet is essential.
As mentioned above, I substituted some sturdy stakes for the 1-gram toothpicks supplied with the tent, and also added two center guylines, for a total of ten stakeout points. During my testing I experienced wind gusts to 35 mph (56 kph) and the tent handled it with ease. The tent did shake and flap quite a bit, which is noisy, but it’s always noisy when the wind blows.
I found the tent’s Cuben Fiber shell to be quite user-friendly. It stays flexible in cold temperatures and sheds snow and rain very well. I used a thin plastic groundsheet under the tent and did not incur any damage to the tent floor while camping in the backcountry. I chose smooth surfaces to pitch the tent on, but of course one can’t do that all the time. While I am comfortable with Cuben Fiber as an adequately durable tent canopy fabric, I am skeptical of using it for a tent floor. It does have higher puncture resistance than silnylon, and much higher tear resistance, but I would still expect the inevitable punctures and patches on the floor. In its favor, it is easy to patch Cuben Fiber with any kind of sticky tape, tape that does not stick to silnylon.
The Laser Ultra has a narrow entry vestibule (left) that is adequate for a smaller backpack. The tent has 34 inches (86 cm) of inside headroom at the center of the tent which is barely adequate (right). It gets down to where sleeping pad thickness makes a difference in how much I brush my head on the ceiling. For a shorter person, headroom is less of an issue.
My sample tent did not come with a hood for the center pole, but one is normally included to secure the tent and prevent leakage through the zipper. It rained several times while I was testing the tent and there was very little leakage through the zipper, so the hood is not really needed.
This graph shows the temperature inside and outside the tent on a cold late October night. In the early evening, the temperature inside the tent is colder than the outside temperature. I entered the tent at 10:10 pm, as shown by the left peak in the blue line. With me in the tent, the inside temperature stayed about 6 degrees warmer than the outside temperature. I got up to pee at 12:35 (the right peak in the blue line). The other two small bumps are when I turned over in my sleeping bag and pumped some warm air out.
A double-wall tent with a solid fabric interior retains heat at night, so it is warmer than a tent with a mesh interior or single-wall tent. I have measured a temperature difference of as much as 12 °F (7 °C) in a one-person tent, and 17 °F (9 °C) in a two-person tent, so a tent with a solid fabric interior like the Laser Ultra 1 is warmer at night.
Weather permitting, the tent’s entry door and ends can be raised “quarter open” to increase ventilation through the tent. This significantly reduces condensation inside the tent when there is nighttime air movement. However, on a clear calm night with a large temperature drop, as with any tent, there will be some, or a lot, of condensation inside the tent.
The following table compares the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 with alternative one-person shelters. Because the Laser Ultra is a unique high-end shelter, I compare it with alternative shelters of different types.
| Tent | Shell Fabric | Floor Area ft2 (m2) | Vestibule Area ft2 ( m2) | Ventilation | Mfr. Total Weight oz (g) | Cost (US$) |
| Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 | Cuben Fiber | 16.7 (1.6) | 3.8 (0.35) | Two end vents, door and ends can be raised “quarter open” | 20.5 (581) | £650 (approx US$1048) |
| Terra Nova Laser Photon 1 | Silnylon | 17.4 (1.6) | 8.4 (0.8) | Two end vents | 27.8 (720) | £380 (approx US$618) |
| Hyperlite Mountain Gear Echo 1 | Cuben Fiber | 18 (1.7) | 6.1 (0.6) | Mesh inner tent and large air space | 23.7 (672) | 495 |
| Tarptent Moment | Silnylon | 18 (1.7 ) | 6.6 (0.6) | Two top vents, two end vents, mesh perimeter | 28.8 (810) | 215 |
| MontBell Crescent 1 | Ripstop nylon | 21.8 (2.0) | 2.6 (0.24) | Two top vents plus partial mesh canopy | 33.0 (936) | 229 |
| Mountain Laurel Designs SoloMid | Cuben Fiber | 30.6 (2.8) | none | One top vent, open perimeter | 9.0 (255) | 340 |
| Gossamer Gear One | Spinnaker Fabric | 17.5 (1.6) | 10.4 (1.0) | One top vent plus perimeter mesh | 19.0 (539) | 295 |
Key Points:
Choosing the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 gives you the distinction of owning the lightest one-person single-wall tent in the world. Of course, you pay a premium for that privilege. When you consider the weight increment of adding adequate stakes and guylines, the weight advantage of the Laser Ultra diminishes.
While I am comfortable with the longevity of the Cuben Fiber canopy, I’m not sure that a Cuben Fiber tent floor is a good idea because it’s vulnerable to punctures and will likely end up with numerous patches. I would personally choose a floorless shelter rather than one with a Cuben Fiber floor, in which case the Mountain Laurel Designs SoloMid has a lot of appeal because of its much larger protected area, much greater headroom, and much lower cost. Interestingly, all the shelters in the table have limited headroom except the MLD SoloMid, and it has so much headroom that you can almost stand up in it. Alternatively, you can consider the Cuben Fiber floor sacrificial and patch it as much as needed, and it’s easy to patch.
Bottom line, the decision depends on what type of shelter you prefer and how much you are willing to spend. For a high-end ultralight tent, the Ultra is indeed the ultimate. But there are a number of alternative shelters that are also very lightweight and cost a lot less. Perhaps the significance of the Laser Ultra is that it maintains Terra Nova’s position as the manufacturer of the lightest tents in the world, and from our standpoint we admire their innovation and leadership.
What’s Good
What’s Not So Good
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/BPL has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.
We “lab’ test thirteen frameless backpacks to measure their actual volume and compare their volume reduction capability, which are important factors when choosing a frameless pack. Our data reveal a few surprises!
You don’t have access to view this content.
German innovation hits the frameless backpacking market: water resistant with a volume that manages to work well for overnighters and week-long expeditions. Is it too good to be true?
The LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK evolved steadily to reach its current design. Comparing the prototype pack and the commercial pack side by side, and looking at the early designs, I see that they have come a long way. The initial design was drawn up to suit the needs of Mateusz Szultk, the owner of LAUFBURSCHE, one of the early adopters of ultralight backpacking in Germany. As usual in UL circles, after using commercial lightweight packs but wanting to decrease his load further, Mateusz sat down to design and sew his own pack. He posted the original design on the BPL MYOG forum and the German Trekking Ultraleicht forum, and soon received a number of requests for his packs.
At that point Mateusz, an architect by education, decided to design the pack further and offer them in a limited series to interested people. The design went through four major evolution steps, which each had a dozen sub-steps, resulting in about fifty prototype packs until the final design was deemed good enough for retail. Every pack design was tested by friends and UL aficionados to gather feedback and further improve the design. The innovative lid of the pack, which makes water leaking in through the lid nearly impossible and is the characteristic feature of the pack, was developed during the third major step. It was hailed by those who used it as a breakthrough in pack design, and the interest in the packs started to further climb. At this point, Mateusz decided to make LAUFBURSCHE his main business – alas, establishing a cottage business is very difficult in the bureaucratic environment of Germany, so it took a while until his business was ready to hang its shingle.
The LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK is designed for ultralight backpacking trips, able to comfortably carry gear and food ranging from an overnighter to trips of two or more weeks. It comes in two sizes – Small and Big – and four different back length sizes – S, M, L and XL – allowing people of all heights to find a suitable pack. The hipbelt is a one-size-fits-all design, which can be shortened to the appropriate personal length of the individual; caps to close the cut-off ends are included so that they can’t get frayed.
The internal volume ranges from 28 liters on the small pack in a S Torso Length to 57 liters on the big pack in a XL Torso Length, and both have the possibility of carrying an additional 9 to 11 liters with the extension collar fully extended. The lid has an elastic rim which stretches out when the extension collar is fully loaded, and will also then cover and protect the entry to the pack from rain, snow, and dust entering it.
The outside pockets and optional hipbelt pockets give additional space for the likes of camera, Platypus, rain gear, and tarp. Volumes range from 1.5 liters for the hipbelt pockets, 5.0 liters for the big rear pocket, 2.0 liters for the diagonal side pocket, and 3.0 liters for the high cut side pocket. The lid pocket is spacious, and I guesstimate that it has a conservative 1.0 liter of volume. Total maximum volume on my tested L Torso Length pack is 67 liters.
The huckePACK has a simple side compression system which helps to flatten the pack in the top part, and it works together with the lid, which also helps to compress the pack from the front and keeps the load close to the back. Having used an ULA Ohm and its excellent side-compression system, I found the huckePACK’s side compression slightly lacking when loaded with little gear. However, this is only of concern when one is not using a closed cell foam (CCF) pad as a burrito frame in the pack – the CCF pad helps to compress the pack more evenly. There are still plenty of gear loops on the pack which, in combination with the provided Dyneema or elastic cord, help with compressing the pack when lightly loaded.
The suspension system of the huckePACK consists of the hipbelt and the shoulder straps, including load lifters. The core element to transfer the load between shoulders and hips will be whatever pad you add as an internal form or an external backpad. The S-Shaped shoulder straps and the hipbelt are made of a 3D padded mesh.
The pack is completely modular with its extras, and users can modify them for their needs appropriately. This means sternum strap, trekking pole holders, bungie cord and backpad cord can be removed or attached as needed, making it versatile for the trip at hand. If you cut off straps to the “appropriate for you” length, it is possible to save another 20 to 30 grams (0.7 to 1.1 oz), pushing the pack close to the 400-gram (14.1-oz) line.
The huckePACK comes standard in Dyneema X Grid, the same currently used by Mountain Laurel Designs and ZPacks. Other materials, like X-Pac, Cuben and 70 denier silynlon, are available as a special option and make the pack up to 90 grams (3.2 oz) lighter with the same features. The mesh pockets are made from a light yet durable mesh.
Views on the LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK: Top left shows the front of the huckePACK, featuring the front pocket made of durable and stretchy mesh fabric. The trail pole/ice axe holders are on the side of the front mesh pocket, two on each side with a top and bottom one. Top right shows the back of the huckePACK, with a Therm-a-Rest Z Lite (four segments) as a backpad, the contoured shoulder straps, and the hipbelt cinched completely closed. Bottom right shows the right side of the pack, with the diagonal side pocket, while bottom left shows the left side of the pack with the high-cut side pocket. In these photos, the pack is packed without any kind of frame except the Z Lite as a backpad.
Left: the bottom of the back, showing where the front mesh pocket starts. Right: the open lid pocket, which has enough space for a notebook and pen, a book, documents, money, and a compass.
With and without back pad. A back pad can be used to increase comfort and ventilation, but is not mandatory for a satisfying carrying experience. A foldable or square-shaped mat works best as a back pad.
A look at the shoulder straps. Left: the outside with two of the three elastic bands for a hydration tube or other gear which needs to be close at hand, and the removable sternum strap. Right: the backside of the shoulder strap, where we see the 3D mesh, which is highly breathable and allows for great ventilation – another unique feature of the pack.
The innovative lid of the huckePACK is a waterproof design. Top left: the open pack. Top right: how the front of the neck is folded inside. Bottom left: the closing mechanism; here the front of the pack gets hooked into an elastic loop at the inside back of the pack, to stay in place. Bottom right: the closed lid – the backside is moved forward and closed with a buckle on the left and right, while the elasticized rim snuggles up to the main pack.
Hydration ports can be found on both sides of the pack.
Full look at the optional hipbelt pockets. They come with dual YKK water resistant zippers and in different sizes: on the left is the 1-liter model, on the right is the 1.5 liter model.
The 1-liter pocket easily holds a Micro-Four Thirds camera like the Panasonic Lumix GF2, with spare room for extra lenses and batteries.
The hipbelt pockets are secured to the hipbelt via an elastic band and secured to the pack via a small clip.
I tested the huckePACK on various trips, ranging from a nine-day trip in Russian Karelia to a three-day trip in the Swedish Fjells as well as countless trips in the Finnish forests and fjells. Weight carried was between 5 kg (11 lbs) for a weekend trip to 17 kg (37.5 lbs) for the nine-day expedition in Russia.
My initial impressions, which fortified themselves over continuous use, are as follows:
The heaviest load I carried with the huckePACK was 17 kg (37.5 lbs), which included food for ten days, water, and gear for an unsupported trip through Russian Karelia. Even with such a load, the huckePACK carried surprisingly well and comfortably despite the lack of stays; at no point did it feel as though the pack or material were overburdened. However, the recommended upper limit which should be carried with the huckePACK is 12 kg (26.5 lbs), which is in line with what other manufacturers recommend as a maximum load for their frameless packs.
As a summit pack, the huckePACK performs well. It can be compressed sufficiently to not have too much loose material and empty space, though I recommend to keep a CCF pad as a burrito frame in it to have the best load transfer and comfort. With a sub 4-kg (8.8-lb) load, it feels like one isn’t carrying anything, and with a normal load of around 8 kg (17.6 lb), mobility and comfort remained excellent, thanks to the more Alpine style of not being a deep pack.
For packrafting (anything longer than a day trip), I would recommend using another pack. Keep in mind that despite DXG being fairly water resistant, it is not waterproof – pack your gear in dry bags. I prefer to carry the rolled up packraft inside the pack, as this gives the best carry comfort – the weight being down in the pack and close to my back – with the minus that all other gear needs to go on top and needs to come out when you want to get the packraft out.
I also used the huckePACK for two weeks while ski and snowshoe guiding as a daypack, and I found it coped well with the extreme cold while granting me complete freedom of movement. It worked best in this case without using the hipbelt and relying on the shoulder straps and sternum strap to keep the sub-4-kg (8.8-lb) load in place. This allowed the most freedom of movement, and also ensured that I could take the pack quickly off when needed.
For the majority of users, a frameless pack still needs a frame of sorts. In the ultralight community, we tend to use our sleeping pads for this purpose, making them serve double duty. I use a Multimat Adventure CCF pad in a burrito style, and usually combine this with four to six sections of a Therm-a-Rest Z Lite for the back panel padding – the Z Lite also serves double duty and functions as a sit pad in breaks and at camp.
The following table lists comparable frameless backpacks which are similar in volume and weight to the LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK. All weights are as stated by the manufacturer and, as far as possible, represent a “naked” weight of an Medium sized pack. Torso length of the huckePACK is M, the volume is without the extension collar.
| Model | Weight (g/oz) | Internal Volume (L) | Cost | Fabric |
| ZPacks Blast 26 | 210 / 7.4 | 43 | $185 | Cuben Fibre |
| ZPacks Dyneema X 26 | 335 / 11.8 | 43 | $185 | Dyneema X |
| MLD Prophet | 411 / 14.5 | 33 | $180 | Dyneema X |
| Six Moon Designs Swift 2011 | 425/ 15.0 | 38 | $110 | 210 denier Dyneema |
| MLD Exodus | 425 / 15.0 | 39 | $185 | Dyneema X |
| LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK | 432 / 15.2 | 38 | €195* | Dyneema X |
| ULA CDT | 481 / 17.0 | 34 | $135 | Dyneema Gridstop |
| MLD Ark | 496 / 17.5 | 52 | $195 | Dyneema X |
| Gossamer Gear Mariposa (without aluminum stay) | 536 / 18.9 | 46 | $170 | Ripstop nylon |
| *The price is given in Euros (€) – as the Dollar and Euro exchange rate fluctuates constantly, we recommend you check the current rate at XE.com. While the price might seem high for U.S. customers, I’d like to point out that European customers pay similar prices for packs made in the USA after shipping, VAT, and import taxes are added, which means ultimately prices are similar on both sides of the Atlantic. | ||||
Closest in this comparison, when looking at volume and weight, are the MLD Exodus and the Six Moon Designs Swift 2011, with the latter also being the most affordable one. The ZPacks Blast pack is the lightest option in this comparison, but is made of Cuben fibre – which might not be as durable as the Dyneema used by most others.
I tested a finished product made of Dyneema X Grid, though I also have used a prototype silynlon pack before purchasing this pack. Besides the different material and the addition of the lid pocket in the DXG pack, and the silnylon being a size large, they are similar in construction. Both packs are of a quality I haven’t yet seen in comparison to other cottage manufacturers and bigger companies.
The LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK, like other frameless backpacks, can be packed in a variety of ways. My personal favourite is the burrito style frame, in which a Closed Cell Foam (CCF) pad or inflatable mat is used as a rolled frame in the backpack, with the pad giving the pack more structure and transferring the weight to the hipbelt. Together with a Z Lite backpad, this packing style makes the huckePACK a comfortable pack, carrying lightweight loads with ease. But even without any sort of frame, I used the pack to carry 17 kg (37.5 lbs) on an expedition in Russia, and it performed well. I have spoken and hiked with other huckePACK users who never use any kind of frame, packing the pack in a way which allows them to carry their load comfortably nevertheless. While this is possible, I do recommend using a burrito style frame in the huckePACK, as this gives the pack a good shape for packing and helps with optimal load transfer.
The use of Dyneema X Gridstop works well for this pack and follows the trend of other cottage manufacturers who also use the lightweight yet durable material. I agree with what Will said in a recent review, “Dyneema X is a superb fabric for backpacks, so purchasing a backpack made with this fabric is an investment in longevity.” However, it is not the lightest option available, and while some might claim that Cuben fibre is not very durable I yet have to see this being a problem in practice – there are plenty of thru-hikers which use Cuben fibre packs on the PCT and CDT, for example.
To get the best carry experience is it paramount that you choose the right size for your pack. Ryan Jordan’s Quantitative Analysis of Backpack Suspension Performance article still is the word to go by, and his recommendation of taking a pack with a slightly longer back is what you should keep in mind when you choose a pack. “The effective user torso length is the user torso length plus one inch” sums it up very well.
| Year/Model | 2010 LAUFBURSCHE huckePACK |
| Style | Frameless toploader |
| Fabric | Dyneema X Gridstop |
| Pack Volume | Total Volume: 67 liters Main Body: 42 – 53 liters Front Mesh Pocket: 5 liters Diagonal Side Pocket: 2 liters High-cut Side Pocket: 3 liters Lid Pocket: 1 liter Hipbelt Pockets: 1.5 liters each |
| Recommended Loads | Base Load: 5 kg or less Maximum Recommended Load: 12 kg |
| Pack Weight | Torso length M, Size Big, in Dyneema X Gridstop Measured Weight: 428 grams Manufacturer Specification: 432 grams |
| Frame Sizing | S – 38-43 cm torso length M – 43- 49 cm torso length L – 49-54 cm torso length XL – 54-60 cm torso length |
| Hipbelt Sizing | One size fits all to a maximum girth of 150 cm |
| Included | Dyneema cord and bungie cord for back pad panel and additional compression, caps to protect user-shortened hipbelt from getting frayed, sternum strap, two ice axe/trail pole holders, haul loop, two hydration hose ports |
| Options | Cuben fibre pack liner, hipbelt pockets in different materials |
| MSRP | €195 |
Disclosure: The author and/or Backpacking Light purchased this product through normal retail channels with no obligation to the manufacturer for providing a review.
The Tumalo line is GoLite’s most affordable WPB rain gear, yet only gives up a little weight on their top-of-the-line offerings. How does it perform?
The Tumalo line is GoLite’s most affordable WPB rain gear, yet only gives up a little weight on their top-of-the-line offerings. Using Pertex’s newest 2.5 material, Shield DS, it tries for a balance of breathability and good water protection. Upping the ante for interior moisture control, it uses pit-zips and mesh pockets for further venting options.
GoLite’s Tumalo Storm Jacket and Pants uses Pertex Shield DS to provide breathable protection from foul weather. Although the stock photography from GoLite shows a drawstring on the outside of the pants, it is actually located inside.
The GoLite Tumalo Storm Jacket and Storm Pants are the most affordable offerings of GoLite’s waterproof-breathable line of rain gear. Both are made with Pertex Sheild DS, a version of a 2.5-layer material.
A quick primer on 2.5-layer fabrics. In the past few years many companies have come out with 2.5 waterproof/breathable fabric. The two and a half layers are as follows: First is the shell material of the garment, usually some type of breathable nylon. Denier (think thickness) can vary greatly. A waterproof/breathable membrane (in this case the Pertex Shield DS) is laminated to one side (that will be the inside of the garment). Over the membrane the “half layer” is actually a raised pattern made by printing a polymer onto the membrane. This saves the weight of a true liner and is suppose to aid in transferring moisture away from the skin and to help alleviate the plastic clammy feeling of the membrane.
Here is what Pertex has to say about their Shield DS. “Pertex Shield DS combines a technically advanced face fabric with a proprietary bi-component polyurethane coating technology specifically engineered for unlined garments. This durable and extremely lightweight fabric has exceptional stretch and provides the optimum balance of waterproofness and breathability. The ‘dry touch’ hydrophilic PU coating reduces internal garment condensation and eliminates the sticky, clammy feel of other coatings.” (More on this later.)
The numbers as far as breathability and waterproofness (is that a word?) are as follows:
The outer shell is made of 15 x 15 denier mini-rip nylon (55 g s/m). To aid in water shedding, a DWR has been applied to the nylon’s outer surface. While not a soft-shell material, the nylon does have a noticeable amount of stretch to it.
Starting at the top, the Storm Jacket has a fixed hood with a small reinforced brim. Thin elastic shock cord runs around the hood and ends on either side with a plastic pull. When pulled close around the face, the cord is held by gasket-type cord locks.
The nylon YKK front zipper is a two-way style, allowing the zipper to be adjusted to a myriad of positions.
The sleeves are gusseted at the arm pits to give an unencumbered range of motion. The material there is grey in color, but does not seem to be any different than the black of the rest of the jacket. The sleeves end with elastic cuffs. The best part of the sleeves, for me, is what is found underneath them. Nine-inch (23-cm) zippers under armpit area open the jacket to the great outdoors, helping hot hikers like me ventilate the interior. The pit-zips are not waterproof but are protected by a small storm-flap.
Waterproof zippers are used on the hand pockets located on the lower sides of the body. These interesting pockets help with ventilation too, as they are made of mesh. Commonly, one layer of mesh is used inside, which is attached to the shell, creating the pocket. GoLite used two layers of mesh, making kind of an envelope. Then by not attaching it to the shell at the top, it makes a large inside pocket too. The inside pockets have no way to close them off, so care must be taken when bending over so as not to lose stuff.
Finally, at the bottom of the jacket there is another elastic shock-cord running through the hem and going through two tethered cord locks. This lets the jacket be cinched tight around the user when conditions call for it.
Left: The Tumalo jacket uses a two-way zipper, which is nice when not wearing a backpack. Right: The mesh pockets are actually two-in-one as seen here. The small North Country Trail map is in the outside pocket while the Chippewa State Forest map is in the inside pocket. Unfortunately heavy or bulky things in both tend to drop to the bottom, where they interfere with my hip belts.
The Tumalo Storm Pants are pretty basic in their design. The same thin elastic shock cord used on the jacket is run around the waist of the pants. A tethered cord-lock sits front and center. There is no fly, nor are there any front or hip pockets. There is a vertical waterproof zipper on the right thigh that accesses a small cargo pocket. A key clip resides inside. You can stuff the pants into the mesh-backed pocket for compact storage.
To facilitate easily getting into the pants, the legs have an 11-inch (28 cm) ankle zipper at the bottoms. The zippers are protected by a large storm flap with Velcro closures. The cuffs have a half section of elastic in them too.
Both the jacket and the pants are completely seam taped.
Top: Elastic shock-cord, like found in tent poles, is used as the drawstrings for the pants, as seen here, as well as in the jacket’s hood and hem. Bottom Left: The legs have a short zipper to make getting the pants on an easier chore. A Velcro tab lets the ankle cuffs be pulled tight if so desired. Bottom Right: The thigh pocket converts to a stuff sack for the pants. The jacket has no provided storage.
Spring of 2010 was the wettest I have ever seen. Hiking the southern sections of the Pacific Crest Trail, I saw my rain gear fail miserably, and I jumped at the chance to test the new GoLite Tumalo Storm Jacket and Pants with its highly touted Pertex Shield DS fabric. Unfortunately, by the time I received them it was summer and I hardly saw any more rain. I used them more as a wind block than rain gear, but here is my take on them.
Top: Hiking on the NCT in Itasca State Park right as the rain started. Bottom: Snowshoeing in snowstorm. The Tumalo gear works fine in winter as long as I don’t need to get the pants off, for the ankle zippers are too small to pass my big boots. (And no, I did not forget to remove my snowshoes first!)
The only sustained rain that I was able to use them during was in Itasca State Park. I spent three hours hiking in solid rain. After having two other brands of 2.5-layer rain gear wet out and actually pass water through the membrane earlier in the year, I was expecting that this could happen with the Tumalos also. I didn’t need to worry. They did an excellent job shedding the water, and, examining them later in camp, I could find no spots that looked as if the fabric was wetting out.
The rest of the summer and fall I only had very short periods of rain during trips in California and Minnesota. This past winter I used them in snow storms in Minnesota where they worked fine too.
I am a very hot hiker, and I sweat a lot. The idea of waterproof breathable fabrics has always been of great interest to me, and I have had many types and brands of them over the years. They have all left me less than awed. From my first use of the Tumalo, I could tell that it could not keep up with moisture transfer for me. I was wearing it on a very cold morning in Mississippi Headwaters State Forest as a wind-breaker. Within 30 minutes I was feeling moisture build up on the arms. The same happened on trips in the Sierra Nevada when I would have to don it because of imminent showers. BUT it was noticeably better than all the other rain gear I have used over the years.
While the numbers for vapor transfer are all well and good, it is very hard to actually notice it for me. But one instance made me take notice of the Tumalo’s Shield DS. I hiked an unmaintained and very poorly marked section of the North Country Trail near White Earth Indian Reservation. As it had rained earlier, the extremely overgrown trail had me soaked right away, my pants looked like I had waded through a pond. I belatedly put on my rain gear. I went back and forth with the jacket, only wearing it in the heaviest brush areas, but left the pants on for about five hours. When I did take off the Storm Pants, I found that my hiking pants were pretty much dry. That meant that my body heat while hiking was able to drive all the moisture from the soaked nylon through the Pertex Shield DS. I was amazed, and it really leant credence to the numbers for me.
The pit zips, of course, help a lot for venting the jacket and personally I won’t buy (or even test) a rain shell without them. To be honest, the Tumalo’s pit zips could be a little longer. They are the shortest ones of any of my shells.
Another thing that could help with venting the jacket is to replace the gathered elastic cuffs with a Velcro strap as that would let it be opened wide, allowing air to travel up my arm.
I really like the slight stretch of Tumalo’s nylon outer layer. The give at the elbows and knees is quite noticeable, especially in the evenings when I wear them in camp as a warmth/wind block layer.
The hood fits well too. When pulled in to my face in heavy rain or snow it still allows good vision, and the brim, while only lightly reinforced, works well to keep my eyes protected.
Pertex mentions the inner layer, claiming it “eliminates the sticky, clammy feel of other coatings.” It does a very good job with this, but does still have the “plastic” feel of most 2.5-layer fabrics. Besides the Tumalo, I have four other brands of 2.5-layer rain jackets as I write this and it feels better than all but one brand. (Believe it or not, an OmniTech shell from Columbia.)
The only problem I have with the Tumalo’s comfort level is the drawstring of the pants. The thin shock-cord they use is very weak, and I found it difficult to get it tight. I would rather see a regular non-stretch line that will let the pants stay put.
I have been pretty impressed with the durability of the Shield DS fabric, considering its low weight. Two of my trips saw bushwhacking through some heavy brush. The pants especially have seen a lot of abuse but they have not shown any signs of wear from it.
Another instance in which damage could occur is from my shoes while putting the pants on in a hurry. The short ankle zippers are just long enough for me to get over my size 11 (US) trail runners, but I still catch the soles on the interior. I found that in winter there was no way I could fit them over my boots, so they only saw winter use on day-hikes that I put them on right from the start, leaving them on until I got back to the trailhead. A longer ankle zipper would make them more useful to me.
I came away from this review with Tumalo becoming my favorite pieces of rain gear for three-season use. While still not breathable enough to keep me from getting wet inside, under exertion it does better than anything else I have used to date.
There is some room for improvement as far as my likes. Besides the aforementioned pants drawstring and jacket cuffs, I would like to see the jacket’s pockets placed a bit higher on the body. This would let them be much more usable and accessible when a pack’s hip belt is in play.
If GoLite were to offer the Storm Pant in a full-zip style, I would be all over it for winter use.
| Manufacturer | GoLite (http://www.golite.com) |
| Models | Tumalo Pertex 2.5-Layer Storm Jacket and Pants |
| Fabric | Pertex Shield DS |
| Jacket Features | Storm flap, waterproof zip hand pockets, two-way center front zip, pit zips, fully taped seams, fixed hood with cord lock closures, shock cord closure on bottom hem |
| Pants Features | Fully taped seams, elasticized waist with draw cord, self-stowing cargo pocket, calf zips with storm flap, Velcro ankle closure |
| Weights Listed |
Jacket (M): 10 oz (285 g) Pants (M): 7 oz (189 g) |
| BPL Weights: | Jacket (XL): 10.5 oz (298 g) Pants (L): 7.5 oz (213 g) |
| MSRP | Jacket: US $150.00 Pants: US $100.00 |
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.
Encountering waterfalls, glaciers, mountains, rivers, volcanoes, and boiling hot springs during a difficult but delightful Icelandic summer.
You don’t have access to view this content.
A lower volume frameless pack constructed of a Cuben fiber/ripstop nylon laminate that’s cutting edge and raises the bar for frameless backpack elegance.
The Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider pack is a cutting edge and versatile frameless backpack. Here I use it as a day pack while backcountry skiing.
Hyperlite Mountain Gear, a new small company making gear for ultralight backpacking, likes to be on the cutting edge, which definitely attracts our attention. I previously reviewed their Echo Modular Shelter System, which is innovative and highly versatile. Their Windrider pack is likewise well designed and versatile. It’s made of a Cuben Fiber/ripstop nylon laminate, which is unique and something I didn’t know even existed. As you will see in our Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011, there are a growing number of backpacks for ultralight backpacking, and most of them are highly refined. How does the HMG Windrider compare with the competition?
| Year/Model | 2011 Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider (www.hyperlitemountaingear.com) |
| Style | Frameless backpack with removable stays, top loading, drybag top closure with two side straps and one top compression Y-strap |
| Volume | Size Large/Tall tested. Specified volume: 2650 cubic inches (43 L) including pockets and extension collar Measured volume: 2590 cubic inches (42 L) |
| Weight | Manufacturer specification: 25.5 oz (723 g) Stays weight: 2.1 oz (60 g) Measured weight: 27.3 oz (774 g) with stays |
| Sizes Available | Unisex S, M, L, Tall |
| Fabrics | Pack body is 2.75 oz/yd2 (93 g/m2) Cuben Fiber/ripstop nylon hybrid fabric, front and side pockets are durable mesh |
| Features | Wide padded hipbelt with two waterproof zippered pockets, mesh front and two side pockets with elastic binding, two compression straps each side, sternum strap, 7-in (18-cm) extension collar, drybag type closure and top compression Y-strap, one ice axe loop, one front tool loop, four front attachment buckles for accessory straps, haul loop, sewn-in backpanel foam pad, hydration sleeve and one hose port, double-reinforced flat bottom |
| Volume to Weight Ratio | 95 in3/oz, based on 2590 in3 and measured weight of 27.3 oz (size Large/Tall) |
| Maximum Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity | 30 lb (13.6 kg) estimated comfortable load for an average person carrying the pack all day |
| Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio | 17.5 (based on 30 lb load and a measured weight of 1.71 lb with stays) |
| MSRP | US$255 |
| Options | Southwest version with Spectra Hardline exterior pockets (same weight and cost) |
The fabric used in the HMG Windrider is truly unique. It’s a Cuben Fiber/ripstop nylon hybrid weighing 2.75 oz/yd2 (93 g/m2), and that’s all they will tell me about it. The Cuben Fiber is on the inside and ripstop nylon on the outside. The pack is sewn together like a conventional frameless pack, rather than using adhesives as in a Cuben Fiber pack. The construction is very high quality.
Close up of the HMG’s Cuben Fiber/ripstop nylon fabric. It’s a bit stiff, and it wrinkles and crinkles.
Views of the HMG Windrider pack: The pack is a traditional style with a large mesh front pocket and two mesh side pockets (far left). The mesh used in the outside pockets is a coarse pattern and quite durable. A Southwest version of the pack with even more durable mesh pockets is available. The backpanel (second photo) is the pack fabric against your back. Each side (third photo) has a large mesh pocket and two compression straps. The top closure (far right) is a drybag type with two side straps and one top Y-strap.
Frame and Suspension: the Windrider comes with two thin flat removable aluminum stays (left) that insert into sleeves on the inside of the pack’s backpanel. The backpanel has a sewn-in foam pad on the inside, plus a shallow hydration sleeve. Shoulder straps (upper right) are 2.75 inches (7 cm) wide, fairly stiff, and have 3D mesh on the underside. Hipbelt wings (right) are 4 inches (10 cm) wide, also fairly stiff, and also have 3D mesh on the inside.
Features: Each hipbelt wing (above) has a large attached Dyneema ripstop pocket with a water resistant zipper.
I tested the Windrider on fall and spring backpacking trips in the southern Rockies and southern Utah canyon country, as well as numerous winter day trips while backcountry skiing and snowshoeing.
The Windrider pack is claimed to be waterproof, no pack cover required: so is it? I also noticed that the pack’s outside ripstop nylon layer absorbs water. So I decided to test the pack’s waterproofness and water absorption by soaking it in the bathtub for half an hour. When I lifted the pack out of the water and opened it up it had about a pint of water in the bottom, and the only way it could have gotten there is by soaking through the seams. I reweighed the pack after allowing it to drip for five minutes and found it had absorbed 11 ounces (312 g) of water. The outcome: the pack is not waterproof as claimed, so the Windrider needs a rain cover like any other pack. The pack’s padding and seam binding accounts for a lot of the absorbed water, but the fabric surface also absorbs quite a bit, certainly more than silnylon would.
A nice feature of the Windrider is its flat bottom, so it stands up on the ground. Many packs readily fall over, which is annoying.
The Windrider has two compression straps on each side and compresses down to half of its full volume, which is very good compared to other packs I tested. The front mesh pocket is fully accessible when the pack is compressed.
The measured pack torso length (size Large/Tall) by the BPL method (inside of shoulder strap to middle of the hipbelt) is 20.25 inches (51 cm), and 22.25 inches (57 cm) by the conventional manufacturer method (top of shoulder strap to bottom of the hipbelt). The Windrider is available in four torso lengths, and the tallest one (tested) ranks in the top three for long torso length; the Granite Gear Virga is the same, and the Gossamer Gear Mariposa and Six Moon Designs Traveler are slightly taller.
Our pack load carrying capacity tests show the Windrider will comfortably carry loads up to 20 pounds (9.1 kg) without stays and up to 30 pounds (13.6 kg) with stays. The Windrider ranked in the middle of six packs tested that have removable stays. Interestingly, the stays help support the pack quite well up to a 20 pound (9.1 kg) load, then collapse more beyond that weight (see Part 2B of this series for specific test results).
The aluminum stays in the Windrider weigh just 2.1 ounces/pair (60 g/pair), one of the lightest among the packs in our roundup that have removable stays. They are flat aluminum stays one-half inch wide and one-sixteenth inch thick (1.3 cm x 2 mm) that will hold a bend, but they are not rigid enough to resist deformation. In other words, they readily flex with the pack’s backpanel, and bend with heavier pack weights. In my opinion, the contoured tubular stay unit used in the Gossamer Gear, Elemental Horizons, and Six Moon Designs packs is better. Its contour can be customized and it’s more rigid to resist distortion with heavier loads.
In its defense, the Windrider is a smaller volume frameless backpack, which is not intended to carry heavy loads, so perhaps the stay system is adequate for the pack’s intended purpose. For the pack’s volume, a normal load of lightweight gear plus expendables would weigh between 15 and 25 pounds (6.8 to 11.3 kg), which is well within the pack’s comfortable carrying capacity. This agrees with my field testing, where I comfortably carried 22 pounds (10 kg) in the Windrider on a three-day backpack on the Boulder Mail Trail in Southwestern Utah.
Our pack volume measurement shows a close agreement with the pack’s specified volume; the specified volume is 2650 cubic inches (43 L), and our measurement is 2590 cubic inches (42 L).
The pack’s hydration sleeve appears to be too shallow, only 9.75 inches (25 cm) deep. However, when I put a filled 2.5-liter Platypus flask in the sleeve, the bottom of the flask is level with the shoulder strap seam, so it appears to be designed to place the weight as high as possible and make the flask as accessible as possible. The side mesh pockets are also tall enough to hold a hydration bladder.
Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 3 (coming soon). The closest comparisons are the Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet, ZPacks Dyneema X 26, and Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) CDT. The first two are about 10 ounces (283 g) lighter, and the third is only slightly lighter.
Although I managed to find a few flaws, I want to emphasize that the Windrider is a very nice pack. It’s cutting edge, as far as materials, design, and construction. The fact that it’s not waterproof as claimed is really a non-issue because no backpack is waterproof unless the seams are taped, and taping seams is tedious and adds weight. The stay system is simple and lightweight, but it is not as robust as some of the other packs. Actually, it’s encouraging to see a 2650 cubic inch (43 L) frameless pack come with removable stays, because it reinforces our finding that stays improve a pack’s comfortable load carrying capacity for loads heavier than 15 pounds (6.8 kg). The stays that come with the Windrider weigh only 2.1 ounces per pair (60 g), so they add minimal weight to the pack while providing multiple benefits.
The Windrider is a smaller volume frameless pack in the “sweet spot” for ultralight backpacking. With a lightweight and compact gear kit, the Windrider is a perfect size for shorter three-season backpacking trips up to about four days. On the plus side, the Windrider is durable and very well designed and constructed. The main downside is that the Windrider is on the heavy side at 25.5 ounces (723 g). Most of its competitors weigh in the 12 to 20 ounce (340 to 567 g) range. It gets down to a basic question of: “does the extra weight equal extra comfort?” The answer is basically yes, but the next question is: “do I want extra comfort features in an ‘ultralight’ frameless backpack, or do I want it Spartan and also comfortable?” That’s a question that you will need to answer for yourself. It’s like deciding between a Lexus and a Prius. If you don’t mind an extra 10 ounces (283 g) of pack weight and extra cost, then the Windrider is a pack that you will be proud to own, and it will perform as well or better than its peers of similar size.
What’s Good
What’s Not So Good
Recommendations For Improvement
Tips and tricks expand upon previously published articles: check out Luke’s six iterations and glean ideas for perfecting YOUR custom-made pack!
You don’t have access to view this content.
One of the most important items in an ultralight gear kit is a frameless backpack, and it’s important to do your research and choose wisely. This five-part manifesto on frameless backpacks (including those with removable stays) is based on two years of field testing and weeks of lab testing. We compile data on all of the packs currently available and evaluate them in groups according to their appropriate use. Part 1 focuses on the intricacies of selecting and using a frameless backpack and provides a master list of frameless backpacks that meet our selection criteria.
Much has changed since our last Frameless Backpack Review Summary published back in 2004 and our Superultralight Backpacks Review Summary published in 2006. Although the fundamentals remain the same, the number, diversity, and features available in frameless backpacks have greatly expanded. Our 2004 article contained just seven packs, and our 2006 article contained five packs. Today we have lots of choices, so it’s entirely possible to find exactly the pack you want in terms of fabric, sizing, volume, and features. The challenges are to determine exactly what you want and to find it.
A lightweight frameless backpack is a core component of a lightweight backpacking kit, whether you choose to travel superultralight (SUL, base weight less than 5 pounds/2.3 kg), ultralight (UL, base weight less than 10 pounds/4.5 kg), or lightweight (LW, base weight less than 20 pounds/9.1 kg). The base weight is everything but consumables (food, water, and fuel). Pack total weight with consumables for SUL backpacking should normally be less than 12 pounds (5.4 kg), less than 20 pounds (9.1 kg) for UL backpacking, and less than 30 pounds (13.6 kg) for LW backpacking. Stronger people can carry more, but most people prefer less. It’s best to keep weight under these limits if you expect to comfortably carry a frameless backpack. The guiding mantra is “less is better.”
Examples of frameless backpacks in the three use categories are the Gossamer Gear Murmur (left) for superultralight backpacking, the Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet for ultralight backpacking, and Six Moon Designs Starlite (right) for lightweight backpacking.
To carry a light load, all you need is a light pack, so a frameless backpack is the pack of choice for backpackers who’ve gone lightweight. Frameless backpacks have become very sophisticated and do their job well. However there is a great diversity of users, backpacking conditions, and specific needs and preferences. To accommodate such a diversity, manufacturers offer frameless backpacks with a wide range of volumes, weights, features, and load hauling capability. To cover the range of packs and uses, we divide the topic into five articles as follows:
Backpacking “enlightenment” is a complete ultralight gear kit weighing well under 20 pounds (9.1 kg) carried in an ultralight frameless backpack. Gossamer Gear Gorilla pack shown.
By definition, a frameless backpack lacks the support of a built-in internal frame. Today’s frameless backpacks are not just a bag with shoulder straps attached, i.e., a rucksack. Rather, they are highly refined for lightweight backcountry travel, a specialized piece of gear that requires the use of specialized techniques to attain its benefits. A frameless backpack is not for everyone, and hikers unwilling to adopt the proper usage techniques, or overload them, are not likely to be happy with a frameless backpack.
The classic frameless backpack consists of a rectangular main compartment, a large front mesh pocket, side mesh pockets, an extension collar, rolltop closure with top compression strap, padded shoulder straps, sternum strap, and most now have a padded hipbelt. This feature set has withstood the test of time, and the design of most frameless backpacks is some version of this fundamental feature set.
Also, some frameless backpacks have available (or included) removable stays or a removable rigid foam framesheet, which adds another dimension to the capability of these packs. With the stays installed, manufacturers claim these packs can comfortably carry heavier loads, but there are a few caveats to be aware of. Packs with removable stays are included in this state of the market report, and we will discuss the use and benefits of removable stays.
The successful use of all frameless backpacks is dependent on the protocols explained in this article (I can’t emphasize that enough!).
Backpackers who are lightening their pack and want to enter the unburdened world of ultralight backpacking should thoroughly read the following sections.
Successfully using a frameless backpack requires you to master certain packing protocols so the pack effectively transfers weight to the hips and carries a load comfortably. The pack needs to be properly loaded and compressed. A basic principle for using a frameless backpack is to create a “virtual frame” which provides frame-like rigidity in the backpanel. A virtual frame is created by the combination of:
The gist of this is that you want your pack to be stiffened as much as possible so it effectively transfers weight to the hips, increasing the comfortable load carrying capacity of the pack by reducing the weight carried on the shoulders. The importance of this technique increases with the amount of weight carried.
Coiled and folded closed cell foam pads. The pad in the photos is a MSR RidgeRest ¾-length. Which pad configuration is better? We evaluate that in Part 2B of this series.
A key factor in this equation is the use of a closed cell foam sleeping pad inside the pack to help attain stiffness. You can test it for yourself by packing your gear kit in a frameless pack with or without a folded CCF pad against the backpanel, then going on a short hike. The CCF pad makes a huge difference!
You may be thinking: “I don’t use a CCF pad anymore, I switched to a lightweight inflatable sleeping pad, so what do I do?” That’s a common conundrum when it comes to the virtual frame concept. You will find some good ideas in the next two sections.
As mentioned, a good compression system is required to make the pack a firm unit. A superultralight backpack doesn’t need much of a compression system because it is usually stuffed tight and is very light. However ultralight and lightweight backpackers, who carry loads of varying volume and weight, need to choose a backpack with a good compression system.
Examples of pack compression/volume reduction systems: the Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) CDT pack (left) has only one compression strap on each side that reduces pack volume only 27%; the Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider pack (center) has two compression straps on each side that reduce pack volume 50%; and the Equinox ARAS Eagle (right) has a robust bungie compression system around the pack that reduces pack volume 70%. Details of our pack volume reduction capability measurements are in Part 2A of this series.
I don’t particularly care for a bungie system on the front of a frameless backpack because it overlays the pack’s mesh pockets and interferes with access to the pockets. For compressing the pack to reduce volume and tighten the load, a bungie system works well, as long as the elastic cord is heavy enough and you compress the pack before you fill it. If you fill a pack before you compress it, a bungie system provides “soft” compression (it stretches more than it compresses), while webbing straps provide “hard” compression (no stretch).
My preferred volume reduction system is webbing compression straps on the sides of the pack. Two compression straps on each side are adequate for a smaller volume pack, and three compression straps per side are better for larger volume or taller packs.
GoLite frameless packs feature their ComPACKtor system on the bottom of the pack, consisting of a hook and loop which, when connected, reduces the volume of the main compartment substantially. Mountain Laurel Designs packs have a similar feature.
The volume-filling approach takes the opposite approach to pack compression to create a tight, firm backpack. Instead of reducing the volume of an oversize backpack, you fill some of that volume with a coiled partially inflated inflatable sleeping pad, then pack your gear inside the cylinder and tighten the pack’s compression system. It works nicely to coil the pad inside the pack, then inflate it to expand the pack. Alternatively, you can fold a partially inflated pad and place it against the backpanel. This technique results in a fully expanded pack, which may or may not carry as well as a compressed one.
Key points for pack compression/volume reduction:
I chose to include packs with removable stays in this state of the market report because these packs are fundamentally frameless backpacks with an accessory consisting of sleeves on the inside of the backpanel that accept contoured flat or tubular stays. The purpose of the stays is to increase pack stiffness; they do not create an internal frame backpack because the stays are not solidly anchored to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight to the hips.
Some frameless backpacks have optional or included removable stays. They are either a contoured tubular stay like the one in the Gossamer Gear Gorilla pack (left) or contoured flat aluminum stays as used in the Six Moon Designs Traveler pack (right). Both slide into sleeves on the inside of the backpanel, and are not anchored to the hipbelt for direct weight transfer. Their main function is to increase pack stiffness, maintain pack torso length, and contour the pack to your back.
Some manufacturers claim their frameless backpack with stays inserted is capable of carrying loads up to 35 pounds (15.9 kg). There is a very important caveat to this; these packs are capable of carrying heavier loads if (and only if) the stays are used in combination with a confined folded closed cell foam pad against the backpanel. That combination can provide a significant boost in a pack’s comfortable weight carrying capacity, to 25 to 30 pounds (11.3 to 13.6 kg) in some cases. To the extreme, there are pack makers who claim their pack will comfortably carry 50 pounds (22.7 kg) (Mithril) or even 100 pounds (45.4 kg) (Kifaru), but let’s get real – for lightweight backpacking there is no reason to carry those outrageous loads, there is nothing comfortable about carrying 50 to 100 pounds (22.7 to 45.4 kg), and if you do there are better packs to help you manage the load. What they really mean is that if you can actually carry that weight, the pack will also carry that amount of weight without busting a seam!
Many hikers these days have switched to a lightweight inflatable sleeping pad, so they don’t have any need to carry a closed cell foam sleeping pad. How do you create a virtual frame without a closed cell foam pad? If a frameless pack has excess volume, a partially inflated inflatable pad can be coiled inside the pack to take up the excess pack volume, and our test results show that it can effectively create a virtual frame. However, a simpler and better approach is to select a properly sized frameless pack with removable stays to stiffen the pack; the stays basically provide the same function as a folded closed cell foam pad against the backpanel.
Do removable stays help you carry heavier loads more comfortably? The answer is a definite yes. In our measurements of pack torso collapse with different loads, reported in Part 2B of this series, we found that all packs that have removable stays will more comfortably carry a heavier load with the stays in, some better than others. But, again, it’s important to know that removable stays do not create an internal frame pack; they simply stiffen a frameless pack (just as a closed cell foam pad does to create a virtual frame) to help it resist pack torso collapse. And stays in combination with a CCF pad provide even more support. We also found that a confined rigid closed cell foam pad in the backpanel of some frameless packs (like the GoLite Peak, Jam, and Pinnacle) performs the same function.
Our tests of packs with and without stays support the conclusion that removable stays are a beneficial option and enhance the versatility of a frameless backpack. A high percentage of the packs in our roundup – even smaller volume packs – offer removable stays. As pack volume increases, the need for a supplementary removable stay system increases, so we feel that larger volume frameless backpacks should definitely include removable stays or at least offer them as an option. You may be thinking: “beyond a certain pack volume, why not simply use a lightweight internal frame backpack?” That’s an alternative, but there is still a weight penalty. Our tests show that the best larger volume frameless backpacks, with stays inserted, can match the comfortable load carrying capacity of a lightweight internal frame backpack, and the packs are significantly lighter.
Key points for removable stays:
It’s ironic that we usually know the exact weight of our gear kit (we weigh everything, right?), but we don’t bother to measure the stuffed volume of our kit. And knowing the volume is a key factor in choosing the proper size backpack. It’s important to choose a frameless backpack that matches the volume range of your normal gear kit plus food, water, and fuel for a typical trip. The reason for this is explained in the paragraphs above; you want your pack to be full and firm, as much as possible, so it carries well. For example, I live close to a large wilderness area and go on frequent fast and light two- or three-day trips. My ultralight gear kit plus food ranges from 2500 to 3000 cubic inches (41 to 49 L) and 15 to 18 pounds (6.8 to 8.2 kg), so my preferred pack volume is in the 2500-3000 cubic inch (41 to 49 L) range.
For many ultralight backpackers, the “sweet spot” is about 2500 to 3200 cubic inches (41 to 52 L) of volume. A well thought out ultralight backpacking kit plus expendables for a shorter trip (up to four days) will easily fit into a pack at the lower end of that range. Gear for cooler temperatures and/or a longer trip will fit into a pack at the upper end of the range. Some thru-hikers prefer a backpack up to 3600 cubic inches (59 L) so they have the extra volume needed for occasional long hauls. The important factor here is higher volume packs used for ultralight backpacking need to have excellent compression capability so pack volume can be adjusted effectively for various size loads.
Many hikers are not consistent on trip type and length, and their pack load varies a lot. What then? The options are to own smaller and larger volume packs, or choose a pack at the high end of the ultralight backpack volume range (around 3500-3600 cubic inches/57-59 L) that has excellent compression capability (explained above) so pack volume can be adjusted as needed. I have tested both approaches, and I personally prefer multiple packs, but that’s more expensive. The latter option is quite workable, but it’s important to choose a pack with excellent compression capability.
A common mistake is to overestimate the pack volume needed, and consequently purchase a pack that is larger than you really need. Many hikers don’t really know the actual volume of their gear kit, and the volume is probably lower than they think. To avoid the mistake of choosing a pack that is too big (or small), I recommend that you actually measure the volume of your gear kit, as shown in the photos below.
A simple method to measure the volume of your gear kit. Shown at left is a typical ultralight gear kit for summer backpacking in the Rockies, where nighttime temperatures can get down to freezing. The total weight is 9 pounds (4.1 kg). To estimate gear volume, obtain a tall cardboard box such as the one pictured in the left photo, stuff your gear in the box as you would pack your backpack (center photo), measure the length, width, and height of the packed portion of the box, then calculate cubic inches by multiplying the three dimensions. The total for the gear kit shown is 2600 cubic inches (43 L). Theoretically, you should add about 100 cubic inches per day (1.6 L) for food, but that may not be necessary (as discussed below). The right photo shows the same gear packed into the ZPacks Dyneema X 26 backpack, which has a claimed total volume of 2600 cubic inches (43 L). All of the gear easily fits into the pack, with the entire extension collar empty, providing plenty of room for food.
I took this exercise a step further by packing the same gear kit (shown above) into the GoLite Peak pack, which is 2440 cubic inches (40 L) for size Large. Again, it all fit leaving the entire extension collar free. Since the extension collar on the Peak is smaller, there is only room for three or four days of food. The mesh outside pockets on the majority of these packs expand to hold a lot of gear, and I typically put at least a third of my gear in the outside pockets so it’s handy. Overall, it’s safe to say that most frameless backpacks will actually hold more volume than specified.
Key points for pack volume:
Okay, now that we have done our part to determine the pack volume we need, can we safely assume that manufacturer specified pack volumes are accurate? The short answer is no. It’s not as straightforward as it should be, because: 1) the volume sometimes varies with the pack size selected: 2) manufacturers vary in how they measure pack volume and what’s included: and 3) unfortunately, manufacturer volume specifications are inaccurate in many cases, as we find in Part 2A of this series. For some pack brands (for example, GoLite), the volume increases as the pack size increases, so there is about a 125+ cubic inch (2 L) difference between pack sizes. However, for many of the other manufacturers of frameless packs, the pack volume is the same for all pack sizes; they simply attach the shoulder straps higher or lower.
The variation in pack volume measurement methods among manufacturers makes it difficult for the buyer, because quite frankly the actual volume can vary substantially from the specified volume. In Roger Caffin’s Lightweight Internal Frame Backpacks State of the Market Report, he found that American made backpacks had 21.1% less volume than specified, which is quite significant. There is an ASTM standard and guidelines for measuring pack volume, using 20 millimeter hollow plastic spheres (essentially ping pong balls), but as Roger points out, there is quite a bit of variation in how the standard is applied (or not applied).
The situation for frameless backpacks is different. Most of the frameless backpacks in this roundup are made by American companies, and most are small businesses, so we would expect even more variation in the methods they use to determine pack volume. Many simply use pack dimensions to calculate volume, and there’s a lot of differences in whether outside pocket and extension collar volume is included or not. The de facto standard for frameless backpacks is to include all pockets and the extension collar in total pack volume, and itemize the volume of the pack components (main compartment, exterior pockets, extension collar). Ultralight and lightweight backpackers need to know these numbers, and the numbers need to be accurate. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case; our pack volume measurements reported in Part 2A of this series reveal some big discrepancies, indicating that frameless pack manufacturers need to adopt a consistent protocol and more accurately measure pack volume.
The standard procedure to measure your torso length is as follows: have a friend measure your back along the spine from the level of your iliac crest (the top of your hipbones) to your C7 vertebrae (the knobby bone at the base of your neck). It helps to mark those spots with a pen or marker, then measure the distance. Most pack manufacturers have an illustration on their website to help you understand where to measure. If you are between two sizes, size up.
This assumes that you will wear a backpack hipbelt on your iliac crest (top of the hipbone). However, if you find it more comfortable to place a hipbelt either higher or lower, a pack should be fitted to your specific support points. For example, the top of my iliac crest has a steep angle, so wearing a hipbelt at the top of my iliac crest is too high, so I prefer to place the hipbelt lower, which means that my torso length is longer than the standard measure would indicate. Consequently, a size Large pack fits me better than a Medium. What doesn’t work is to choose a pack size based on the standard measure of user torso length, and then wear the pack either higher or lower than your iliac crest.
A proper fit, defined as the pack torso length matching the user torso length, is important for optimum pack performance. The hipbelt should wrap around the top of your hips, and the top of the shoulder straps should attach to the pack at the top of your shoulders. If a pack has load lifters, they should angle up to their pack attachment at a 45 degree angle. It’s okay for the pack torso length to be a bit more than the user torso length, but not less. The shoulder straps should not wrap over your shoulders and down to the pack attachment. The “wrap over the shoulders” fit may be acceptable for a day pack, but not for a backpack.
An example of a pack that is too short for the user – the pack torso length is less than the user torso length.
A pack that is too short (pack torso length less than the user torso length) results in pack lean-back, which is explained as follows. The proper procedure to put on a pack is to loosen the shoulder straps and hipbelt, put the pack on, tighten the hipbelt in its proper place, then tighten the shoulder straps (and load lifters if your pack has them). If the pack torso length is too short, tightening the shoulder straps will put much of the pack’s weight on your shoulders. After hiking a while, shoulder fatigue sets in and the remedy is to loosen the shoulder straps, which causes the top of the pack to lean back. This shifts pack weight to the hips and relieves shoulder discomfort, but the pack’s center of gravity is moved outward. Bottom line, this is not a proper fit and not the best way to carry a backpack, and can be avoided by purchasing the correct size pack in the first place.
Things I learned from testing backpacks for this article are: 1) the method manufacturers use to measure pack torso length can be misleading, 2) the actual pack torso length for a given pack size can vary significantly among manufacturers, and 3) an underfilled or overweighted pack can result in pack torso collapse, which amounts to a reduction of the pack’s torso length of at least one size.
Most manufacturers measure pack torso length from the top of the shoulder strap attachment to the bottom of the hipbelt. This is easy to measure, but (in my opinion) the resultant pack torso length comes out to be longer in relation to how user torso length is measured and how the pack is worn. In my opinion, a more meaningful pack torso length measurement would be from the underside of a shoulder strap to the middle of the hipbelt. Finally, the actual torso length of a given pack size can vary significantly among manufacturers. When I measured the actual torso length of all the size Large packs I tested, I found a rather wide range. The bottom line is to make sure a pack fits properly.
Key points for proper fit:
Interestingly, there are no frameless backpacks made of spinnaker fabric in this roundup, probably because it has proved to be too fragile. Spinnaker fabric, weighing about 1 ounce per square yard (34 g/m2), was previously the lightest fabric available in a frameless backpack, for example the Gossamer Gear G5 and G6 Uberlight packs. Overall, frameless backpack fabrics have moved up a notch in durability. The lightest fabrics available now are Cuben Fiber, silnylon, and PU coated ripstop nylon. The first two are nearly equivalent in weight because a heavier, more durable version of Cuben Fiber (CTF3, 1.4 oz/yd2/47.5 g/m2) is required for a backpack. Pack manufacturers who use Cuben Fiber claim that it has much higher puncture and tear resistance than silnylon. According to Ron Bell at Mountain Laurel designs, silnylon warp tear strength is about 12 to16 pounds per square inch (0.8 to 1.1 kg/cm2) and Cuben Fiber CTF3 is 190 pounds per square inch (13.4 kg/cm2). The differences are demonstrated in this video by ZPacks:
Lightweight backpack fabrics. Cuben Fiber CTF3 (left) which weighs about 1.4 oz/yd2 (47.5 g/m2) is a non-woven laminate consisting of a grid of white Dyneema (Spectra) threads sandwiched between transparent polyester membranes. CTF3 has more than twice the spectra thread count of the thinner Cuben laminates, plus a double thick polyester membrane, making it the best choice for backpack construction. Dyneema fabric (center) is commonly a 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) grid of Dyneema (Spectra) fibers woven into 210 denier ripstop nylon, with coatings on both sides, weighing around 4 oz/yd2 (136 g/m2). Common silnylon (not shown) is silicone impregnated 30 denier ripstop nylon weighing around 1.3 oz/yd2 (44 g/m2). There are numerous variations of silnylon available, including a heavier 70 denier weight. Finally, common polyurethane coated ripstop nylon (right) is still a viable lightweight inexpensive fabric for backpacks; various weights are used in different parts of a pack but 1.8 to 2.2 oz/yd2 (61 to 75 g/m2) fabric in the pack body is a good balance of light weight and durability.
At the more durable end of the range are the Dyneema ripstop fabrics, which are basically a 210 denier ripstop nylon containing a grid of Dyneema fibers. Dyneema and Spectra are nearly identical; Dyneema is made by DSM in the Netherlands, and Spectra fiber is made by Honeywell in the United States. The difference among Dyneema fabrics is in the fabric weave and amount and orientation of Spectra contained. Manufacturers have assigned names like Dyneema Gridstop, Dyneema Ripstop, Dyneema Diamond, etc. to the fabrics. Dyneema X, exclusive to Mountain Laurel Designs and Thru-Hiker, is described as “4 oz/yd2 (136 g/m2) 210d Nylon with a white 210 Dyneema ripstop grid and 0.25-inch (0.6 cm) reinforcement at 0 and 90 degrees. The high Dyneema content equals 9% of total fabric weight. Each Dyneema thread is 15 times as strong as steel by weight. An additional X pattern of nylon overweave improves abrasion and tear resistance.”
The new Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider pack is made of a unique Cuben Fiber and ripstop nylon laminate. Fabric weight is 2.75 oz/yd2 (93.3 g/m2). The hybrid fabric allows the pack to be sewn rather than assembled using adhesives.
Fabric choice depends on how you will use the backpack. Silnylon and Cuben Fiber are the fabrics of choice for the lightest packs that will be used for superultralight or minimalist ultralight backpacking, where every ounce counts. For general ultralight and lightweight backpacking, I recommend the Dyneema ripstop fabrics because they are the best balance of light weight, durability, cost, and longevity. A Dyneema ripstop pack can last a lifetime, while a silnylon or Cuben Fiber pack has a limited lifespan. According to Joe Valesco at ZPacks, “Cuben Fiber eventually begins to fray from excessive sun exposure and general use. This is what limits the lifespan to 2500 to 3000 miles. You will likely have duct tape on some frayed areas by the end of a long thru-hike.” To illustrate the weight difference, let’s take an example: the basic ZPacks Blast 26 backpack (2600 cubic inches/43 L) weighs 7.4 ounces (210 g) when constructed of Cuben Fiber or Silnylon. The same pack constructed of more durable Dyneema X fabric adds 4.4 ounces (125 g), for a total weight of 11.8 ounces (335 g), which is still very light.
All this said, it still seems like we have not found the “perfect” fabric for an ultralight frameless backpack. Silnylon and Cuben Fiber don’t have the longevity, and 4 oz/yd2 (136 g/m2) Dyneema ripstop seems like overkill. It would be nice to have a 2 oz/yd2 (68 g/m2) Dyneema ripstop? Also, Invista is introducing a new UltraLite line of Cordura fabrics in the 30 to 100 denier range; perhaps we will start seeing those fabrics in ultralight frameless backpacks in the near future.
Key points for fabric choices:
Nowadays a full range of options is available, so with some research you can find exactly what you want. The choices range from a minimalist pack with very lightweight or removable features, to a full-featured durable pack, or one where you can select your desired fabric and features ala carte. Many packs are a predetermined design (e.g., GoLite and Gossamer Gear), where the manufacturer has optimized the pack with a tested feature set they perceive will satisfy the majority of hikers. Other manufacturers (e.g., Mountain Laurel Designs and ZPacks) offer a basic pack design with your choice of fabric and additional features. And these companies are masters at designing features and accessories that are very lightweight and removable, so it’s entirely possible to configure a pack to your liking and still hold the weight down to 15 to 20 ounces (425 to 567 g).
The time tested traditional frameless backpack feature set consists of a rolltop closure, front and side mesh pockets, hipbelt, and sternum strap. Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus pack shown.
It all gets down to personal preference. While reading reader’s comments, I notice a full spectrum of individual preferences. Two schools of thought are the “clean design” and the “functional design.” The clean design eliminates outside pockets and accessories that can get shredded over time, but requires taking the pack off to access needed items. A functional design includes the traditional front and side mesh outside pockets, hipbelt pockets, and even shoulder strap and sternum strap pockets, to accommodate a “do it on the fly” philosophy for maximum convenience. I subscribe to the latter philosophy because I want to access things on the go, and I am gentle on gear, but I realize that there are many people and hostile conditions that are hard on gear, requiring the former approach.
Obviously durable fabric and features add weight, and it is up to the buyer to evaluate the weight/benefit tradeoffs and decide which pack and options best meet his or her needs. This is an important decision because, after all, frameless backpack users are ultralight backpackers and every ounce matters. We are always confronted with weight versus benefit decisions and our objective is always to minimize weight while getting in as many benefits as possible. If you get carried away with adding features, you can be accused of thinking like a lightweight backpacker (sorry for the jab there!), who has a hard time doing without gadgets, features, and comfort/convenience items.
Key points for features:
Most of the above factors come together in this section. Properly packing a frameless backpack (or one with removable stays) is important, and it needs to be taken seriously. How you pack determines how well a pack fits and how comfortably it carries a load.
Here’s the drill:
This creates a firm pack with a virtual frame that carries well and will more readily transfer weight to the hips. The whole packing process, and the result, is better if you use a pack whose volume matches the volume of your gear plus food. The extra pack volume for longer trips should be the remainder of the extension collar.
These photos illustrate a key point in regard to proper pack sizing and packing. The left photo shows a frameless pack (Mountain Laurel Designs Exodus) firmly packed 2 to 3 inches (5 to 8 cm) above the shoulder strap attachment. The right photo shows the same pack underfilled to below the shoulder strap attachment causing pack torso collapse at the top of the pack. The top of the pack bends below the shoulder strap attachment point, which effectively shortens the pack’s torso length, which in turn compromises pack fit. It’s better to reduce pack volume so the pack firmly fills above the shoulder strap attachment. A tall slender pack fits and carries better than a short squatty shape.
Key points for proper packing:
A frameless backpack is just one item in an ultralight backpacking kit. A lot of effort is required to plan such a kit that meets all of your needs and is still very lightweight (base weight under 10 pounds/4.5 kg). It’s important that your backpack matches your kit in terms of volume, features, and weight carrying capacity. Never choose a frameless backpack, even one with removable stays, if your base weight is over 20 pounds (9.1 kg) or total weight is normally over 30 pounds/13.6 kg. To comfortably carry those loads, you need a lightweight internal frame backpack.
Although most “enlightened” backpackers would argue for “the lighter the better,” there is room for pragmatism here. For me, I am a happy hiker if my total pack weight is under 16 pounds (7.3 kg). I really don’t notice the weight of my pack up to that point, but I progressively do notice it above that threshold. Glen Van Peski would not agree with this!
Finding the ideal frameless backpack gets down to doing a lot of research, evaluating the options, and making a wise decision. My experience from using a frameless backpack for over 13 years, reading numerous forum comments, and testing numerous frameless backpacks is that everyone’s perspective, situation, and needs are different, and everyone needs to make their own personal decision on which pack to buy. To help with that decision, in the sections ahead I provide comparative specifications for all of the packs included in this state-of-the-market report, and evaluate them in Parts 3 and 4 of this article.
This state of the market report focuses on frameless backpacks larger than 2000 cubic inches (33 L), which are suitable for superultralight, ultralight, and lightweight backpacking. The roundup also includes some larger volume backpacks capable of carrying large volume/moderate weight loads. I also include packs with optional removable stays, and comment on the functionality of the stays.
Overall, the selection criteria are fairly simple:
The following table contains (in alphabetical order by manufacturer) specifications for all of the frameless backpacks included in this state-of-the-market report. For comparability, the weight of packs that have removable stays is for the pack only, without the stays. In subsequent articles in this series, the packs are divided into three groups, based on total volume, for superultralight, ultralight, and lightweight backpacking.
| Pack | Gender1 | Torso Sizes |
Removable Stays or Rigid Foam Backpanel |
Fabric | Volume2 in3 (L) | Mfr. Weight3 oz (g) |
Volume/Weight Ratio4 in3/oz (cm3/g) |
Cost (US$) |
| Elemental Horizons Aquilo | U | S,M,L | Yes | 70d 1.9 oz/yd2 PU coated ripstop nylon | 2700 (44) | 31.5 (893) | 86 (148) | 180 |
| Equinox Pamola | U | One Size | 30d Silnylon | 2475 (41) | 24.0 (680) | 103 (178) | 110 | |
| Equinox ARAS Eagle | U | One Size | 30d Silnylon | 3200 (52) | 20.8 (590) | 154 (89) | 129 | |
| Equinox Katahdin | U | One Size | 30d Silnylon | 3350 (55) | 26.0 (737) | 129 (223) | 110 | |
| GoLite Peak | U | S,M,L | Yes | 210d Dyneema Gridstop | 2200 (36) | 26.0 (745) | 85 (49) | 125 |
| GoLite Jam | M, W | M’s S,M,L W’s S,M,L |
Yes | 210d Dyneema Gridstop | 3050 (50) | 29.0 (840) | 105 (61) | 150 |
| GoLite Pinnacle | M, W | M’s S,M,L W’s S,M,L |
Yes | 210d Dyneema Gridstop | 4392 (72) | 32.0 (930) | 137 (79) | 175 |
| Gossamer Gear Murmur | U | One Size | 30d Silnylon | 2200 (36) | 8.1 (231) | 272 (157) | 90 | |
| Gossamer Gear G4 | U | S,M,L | 70d 2.2 oz/yd2 PU coated ripstop Nylon | 4000 (66) | 16.5 (468) | 242 (140) | 125 | |
| Gossamer Gear Gorilla | U | S,M,L | Yes | 210d PU coated ripstop nylon | 2800 (46) | 19.8 (561) | 141 (82) | 180 |
| Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus | U | S,M,L | Yes | 70d 2.2 oz/yd2 PU coated ripstop Nylon | 3600 (59) | 18.9 (536) | 191 (110) | 170 |
| Granite Gear Virga | U | S,M,L | 70d ripstop Nylon | 3200 (52) | 19.0 (540) | 168 (97) | 110 | |
| Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider | U | S,M,L,Tall | Yes | Cuben Fiber + ripstop nylon hybrid | 2650 (43) | 23.4 (663) | 113 (65) | 255 |
| Kifaru KU3700 | U | Custom | Yes | Proprietary Silnylon | 3700 (61) | 41.0 (1190) | 90 (156) | 518 |
| Kifaru KU5200 | U | Custom | Yes | Proprietary Silnylon | 5200 (85) | 45.0 (1270) | 116 (200) | 558 |
| Laufbursche huckePACK5 | U | S,M,L,XL | 210d Dyneema X | 3100 (51) | 14.3 (404) | 217 (125) | 276 | |
| Laufbursche huckePACK5 | U | S,M,L,XL | 1.7 oz/yd2 (58 g/m2) Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 3100 (51) | 11.8 (335) | 263 (152) | 284 | |
| Laufbursche huckePACK5 | U | S,M,L,XL | 210d Dyneema X | 3600 (59) | 14.7 (416) | 245 (142) | 276 | |
| Laufbursche huckePACK5 | U | S,M,L,XL | 1.7 oz/yd2 (58 g/m2) Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 3600 (59) | 12.0 (341) | 300 (173) | 284 | |
| Laufbursche huckePACKchen5 | U | One Size | 210d Dyneema X | 2380 (39) | 10.6 (300) | 225 (130) | 213 | |
| Laufbursche huckePACKchen5 | U | One Size | 1.7 oz/yd2 (58 g/m2) Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 2380 (39) | 7.6 (215) | 313 (181) | 216 | |
| Moonbow Gear Mithril6 | U | S,M,L, Custom |
30d Silnylon | 3000 (49) | 16.5 (468) | 182 (315) | 220 | |
| Mountain Laurel Designs Burn | U | S,M,L | 210d Dyneema X | 2300 (38) | 9.8 (278) | 235 (136) | 139 | |
| Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet | U | XS,S,M,L | 210d Dyneema X | 2900 (48) | 14.5 (411) | 200 (116) | 180 | |
| Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet | U | XS,S,M,L | 1.4 oz/y2 (47 g/m2) Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 2900 (48) | 7.0 (198) | 414 (240) | 195 | |
| Mountain Laurel Designs Exodus | U | S,M,L | 210d Dyneema X | 3500 (57) | 15.0 (425) | 233 (135) | 185 | |
| Mountain Laurel Designs Ark | U | M,L | 210d Dyneema X | 4400 (72) | 17.5 (496) | 251 (145) | 195 | |
| Rodney’s Packs7 | U | S,M,L, Custom |
Varies | Varies | Varies | Varies | Varies | |
| Six Moon Designs Swift | U | M,L | Yes | 210d Dyneema Diamond | 3400 (56) | 15.0 (425) | 227 (131) | 110 |
| Six Moon Designs Starlite | U | Adjustable | Yes | 210d Dyneema Diamond | 4200 (67) | 24.0 (680) | 175 (101) | 180 |
| Six Moon Designs Traveler | U | Adjustable | Yes | 210d Dyneema Diamond | 3800 (62) | 26.0 (737) | 146 (85) | 185 |
| Ultralight Adventure Equipment CDT | U | S,M,L | 210d Dyneema Gridstop | 3610 (59) | 17.0 (482) | 212 (123) | 135 | |
| ZPacks Blast 20 | U | S,M,L | Yes | Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 2000 (33) | 6.8 (193 ) | 294 (170) | 175 |
| ZPacks Blast 26 | U | S,M,L | Yes | Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 2600 (43) | 7.4 (210 ) | 351 (203) | 185 |
| ZPacks Blast 32 | U | S,M,L | Yes | Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 3200 (53) | 7.8 (220 ) | 410 (237) | 195 |
| ZPacks Dyneema X 20 | U | S,M,L | Yes | 210d Dyneema X | 2000 (33) | 10.9 (310) | 184 (106) | 175 |
| ZPacks Dyneema X 26 | U | S,M,L | Yes | 210d Dyneema X | 2600 (43) | 11.8 (335) | 220 (127) | 185 |
| ZPacks Dyneema X 32 | U | S,M,L | Yes | 210d Dyneema X | 3200 (53) | 12.6 (357) | 254 (147) | 195 |
| ZPacks Zero 20 | U | S,M,L | Yes | Silnylon | 2000 (33) | 3.1 (88) | 645 (373) | 55 |
| ZPacks Zero 20 | U | S,M,L | Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 2000 (33) | 3.1 (88) | 645 (373) | 85 | |
| ZPacks Zero 20 | U | S,M,L | Dyneema X | 2000 (33) | 7.0 (198) | 286 (165) | 85 | |
| ZPacks Zero 26 | U | S,M,L | Yes | Cuben Fiber CTF3 | 2600 (43) | 3.5 (99) | 743 (429) | 95 |
| ZPacks Zero 26 | U | S,M,L | Yes | Dyneema X | 2600 (43) | 7.8 (221) | 333 (193) | 95 |
Footnotes:
1 M=Men’s, W=Women’s, U=Unisex.
2 Manufacturer specified total volume for size medium, including outside pockets.
3 Manufacturer specified weight is used for comparison because we were not able to obtain all of the packs and weigh them. For packs with removable stays, weight listed is without stays.
4 Derived by dividing pack volume by pack weight, this value indicates how efficiently a manufacturer has selected materials to reduce weight. A high value indicates very lightweight materials and fewer accessories. Also, larger volume packs generally have a higher volume to weight ratio.
5 Laufbursche (a small company in Germany) is currently (April 2011) accepting pre-orders for their packs, and expects to fully open for business by the time this article publishes. Listed prices for their packs are converted to US Dollars as of April 2011.
6 The Mithril pack is designed by Dr. George Cole at Kiskil Outdoor and manufactured by Moonbow Gear.
7 Rodney’s Packs (a small company in the Philippines) sells frameless packs in a variety of designs, either pre-made and posted for sale on his website (http://www.freewebs.com/litepacks/), or custom packs to buyer’s specifications.
There are a total of 43 backpacks listed in the table, nearly four times as many as our previous roundups combined. All of these packs can potentially be used for superultralight, ultralight, or lightweight backpacking, but some are more suited than others. Note that the ZPacks Zero packs are stuffsack packs intended for superultralight backpacking – a stuff sack with shoulder straps; the addition of outside pockets or other accessories adds weight.
Two-thirds of the backpacks are mid-size (2400 to 3600 cubic inches/39 to 59 L), appropriate for ultralight backpacking, which makes sense since that is the most popular use. However, when I measured the volume of the packs I tested, there were a few surprises (read Part 2A for details), which resulted in some “midsize” packs being moved into the “larger volume” category, which is more suitable for lightweight backpacking.
The popular Granite Gear Vapor Trail is sometimes mistaken to be a frameless backpack. It does in fact have an internal frame consisting of a HDPE plastic framesheet plus a closed cell foam pad that is sewn-in and not removable. The Vapor Trail is now discontinued, but will be replaced by the Vapor Trail 2 in spring 2012. The new Vapor Trail 2 will resemble the current Blaze pack, will weigh about 2 pounds (0.9 kg), and will possibly have a removable framesheet.
Another source of frameless backpacks is Rodney’s Packs (http://www.freewebs.com/litepacks/index.htm). Rodney Liwanag, located in the Philippines, makes custom frameless backpacks utilizing numerous designs and fabrics. He often sews up a batch of packs of various designs and displays them for sale on his website. His packs are not included in subsequent parts of this report because he does not have any standard packs. Most of his packs are traditional designs; one of particular interest is his scaled down “Gossamer Gear G4-like” pack with 3000 cubic inches (49 L) of volume.
Fanatic Fringe appears to be out of business. We will miss their lightweight and inexpensive Alpine Trail pack for superultralight backpacking and Thompson Peak Pack for ultralight backpacking.
Notice the large number of frameless packs that have optional or included removable stays. As discussed earlier, this low-cost feature provides some distinct benefits, and adds more versatility to a frameless backpack. Our torso collapse tests in Part 2B of this series reveal that removable stays significantly improve a pack’s comfortable load carrying capacity, leading to the conclusion that removable stays should be an option on all larger capacity frameless backpacks.
The table also includes some large volume packs, for example the GoLite Pinnacle and Kifaru packs, which I call load haulers. These packs go beyond the volume actually needed for lightweight backpacking. I include them with packs suitable for lightweight backpacking in Part 4 and discuss their pros and cons. There is a point where it simply makes sense to purchase a lightweight internal frame backpack, or not, and I discuss that conundrum in Part 4.
As you can see from the specifications table, there is a wide range of frameless backpacks differing mainly in volume, fabric, and weight. To compare them in this “bulk” listing would be totally meaningless, like comparing apples, bananas, and grapefruit. So, they will be divided into appropriate use categories based on their volume and weight. In Parts 2A and 2B of this state-of-the-market report, our technical evaluation of a group of thirteen packs provides a basis for separating the packs into appropriate groups based on use, and provides data for performance rating the packs. In Part 3 we focus on packs suited for ultralight backpacking, presenting appropriate background, specifications, ratings, and picks for specific situations and needs. In Part 4 we do the same for lightweight frameless backpacks.
The CDT is a really nice frameless backpack that would be even better with a few revisions. And there is one thing you really need to know…
Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) CDT on a late summer backpack in the Southern Colorado Rockies.
The CDT is a frameless backpack with durable fabric, lots of features and included accessories for a great value. It sounds like the perfect pack, and it almost is, but there’s one thing you really need to know.
| Year/Model | 2010 Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) CDT (http://www.ula-equipment.com) |
| Style | Frameless backpack, top loading, drawcord closure with top compression strap |
| Volume | Size M/L tested. Specified volume: 3610 cubic inches (59 L) including pockets and extension collar Measured volume: 2700 cubic inches (44 L) |
| Weight | Measured weight: 20 oz (567 g) Manufacturer specification: 17 oz (482 g); Weight of included accessories: 3.8 oz (108 g) |
| Sizes Available | Unisex S/M, M/L |
| Fabrics | Pack body is 210d Dyneema Gridstop, outside pockets are stretch nylon |
| Features | Sternum strap, large front stretch nylon pocket, 2 side stretch nylon pockets with drawcord closure, 2 hipbelt pockets, 1 compression strap each side, 8.5 in (22 cm) extension collar, drawcord closure and top compression strap, 2 tool loops, 2 ice axe loops, haul loop, removable backpanel foam pad, removable hydration sleeve with 2 ports, removable mesh security pocket, removable hand loops, removable water bottle loops on shoulder straps |
| Volume to Weight Ratio | 135 in3/oz (based on 2700 in3 and measured weight of 20 oz (size M/L) |
| Maximum Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity | 25 lb (11.3 kg) estimated comfortable load for an average person carrying the pack all day |
| Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio | 20 (based on 25 lb and a measured weight of 1.25 lb) |
| MSRP | US$135 |
| Options | Two hipbelt lengths, two shoulder strap shapes |
The CDT is a likeable pack, but there is one thing you need to know right up front: although the specified volume of the CDT is 3610 cubic inches (59 L), the measured volume is only 2700 cubic inches (44 L). That’s 910 cubic inches/15 L (25%) smaller than specified. Both volumes include the extension collar and all pockets. The actual volume (2700 cubic inches/44 L) is a nice volume for many ultralight backpackers; but the key point is that the CDT is a smaller volume pack than specified.
Views of the ULA CDT pack: The frontpanel (far left) has a tall stretch nylon pocket that holds a lot of gear. The backpanel (second photo) is fabric against your back. Each side (third photo) of the pack has a sharply angled stretch nylon pocket and one compression strap. The bottom of the pack is tapered in. The CDT has a short extension collar with drawcord closure and one top compression strap (far right).
Suspension system: Shoulder straps (left) and hipbelt are wide and well padded. Two shoulder strap shapes are available: an S-curve shape or J-curve (shown in center photo). The shoulder straps attach to the outside bottom of the pack (right), which helps to lift the pack.
Features: The stretch nylon side pockets (top left) on my sample pack are sharply angled and have a drawcord closure. A number of useful accessories are included with the pack (upper right): a removable security pocket, hydration sleeve, and handloops. Hipbelt pockets (bottom left) are also standard, as are water bottle loops on both shoulder straps (bottom right).
Late fall backpack in the southern Colorado Rockies carrying 22 pounds (10 kg) in the CDT.
Once I understood and accepted the fact that the CDT is a smaller volume pack than expected, (see previous section) I found it more likeable because I prefer a smaller volume pack. For a compact ultralight gear kit, the CDT has the right amount of room for a three- to five-day backpack.
The CDT has five outside pockets which hold a large amount of gear. The front and side pockets are stretch nylon, which is really nice, and hipbelt pockets are included. One drawback on my test pack is the side pockets are very angled – essentially a half pocket – so things can easily fall out. When I contacted ULA about the issue, they responded that many hikers had complained about that, so the pocket shape has been modified.
One other drawback of the CDT is its small extension collar. It doesn’t add much reserve volume to the pack for when you need it, and there is no extra length to roll the top down. Consequently there is a hole in the top where rain can enter (see top view above). The extension collar measures 8.5 inches (22 cm); 12 inches (30 cm) would be much better.
The CDT comes with a bunch of included accessories: removable elastic water bottle holders on both shoulder straps, handloops, removable hydration sleeve, and removable zippered mesh security pocket. Overall, the CDT is a great value considering its durable dyneema fabric, comfortable suspension, and included features and accessories.
Clip on handloops (0.8 ounce/3 g per pair) come with the CDT. They provide a handy place to hang your hands on the trail (if you don’t use trekking poles) and take a bit of weight off the shoulders.
The pack I tested is a size M/L; the pack torso length measures 18 inches (46 cm) by the BPL method (inside of a shoulder strap to the middle of the hipbelt) and 20.5 inches (52 cm) by the conventional manufacturer method (top of shoulder strap to bottom of hipbelt). This comes out to about a size Medium +, so the CDT is not a good choice for taller hikers. My torso length is 20.5 inches (52 cm), and the CDT is a bit short for me, as shown in the photos.
The CDT is designed to hug the back and it has a comfortable suspension system. The bottom of the shoulder straps connect to the bottom rear of the pack, which helps to lift the pack. Consequently, in my torso collapse tests to measure pack load carrying capacity, the CDT did better than many of its frameless competitors, carrying up to 25 pounds (11.3 kg) comfortably.
The CDT has only one compression strap on each side, which creates an hourglass shape when drawn. The single pair of compression straps do not reduce pack volume very much, only a 27% reduction by my measurements. Another compression strap on each side would help a lot.
Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011. The closest comparisons are the Zpacks Dyneema X 26, Gossamer Gear Gorilla, Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider, Six Moon Designs Swift, and GoLite Jam.
With a few revisions, the CDT would be high on our list of favorite frameless packs. The sharply angled side pockets, needed compression straps, and short extension collar are easily corrected, and of course the volume needs to be accurately stated. Its actual volume (2700 cubic inches/44 L) is right in the sweet zone for ultralight backpacking, it has a comfortable suspension, it has a great feature set, it carries a decent load, and it’s a great value.
What’s Good
What’s Not So Good
Recommendations For Improvement
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.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
