Articles (2020)

Introduction

Equinox has been making ultralight silnylon backpacks for years. Their newest pack is the ARAS Eagle (I don’t know what ARAS stands for), which has three distinctive features: a top pocket, a front bungie compression system, and a stiff mesh backpanel. Actually, the pack is loaded with features, as listed in the specifications table below. Unfortunately it only comes in one size (Medium) that fits torsos 17 to 19 inches (43 to 48 cm). If the pack fits you, and you like the feature set, then this may be the pack for you.

Specifications

Description

The ARAS Eagle is innovative in several ways:

• It has a top pocket, which departs from the traditional rolldown closure and top strap. The top pocket provides another stowage option and covers the top of the pack.
• It has two wings from the backpanel seam that hold a capable bungie compression system on the front of the pack. Each of the wings has a zippered pocket.
• The backpanel is stiff mesh. On the inside behind it, there is a wide sleeve that will hold a folded sleeping pad against the backpanel. The sleeve will also hold a hydration bladder, but it may be more convenient to put it in one of the side mesh pockets.
• The pack has a total of eight outside pockets (3 front and side mesh pockets, 2 wing pockets, 2 mesh hipbelt pockets, and 1 top pocket).

Performance

The main drawback of the ARAS Eagle is it only comes in one size – Medium. This is unfortunate because it is quite a nice pack with a lot of features and is value priced. The pack’s torso length is 16.5 inches (42 cm) by the BPL measurement method (underside of shoulder strap to center of the hipbelt), and 18.75 inches (48 cm) by the conventional manufacturer measurement system (top of shoulder strap to bottom of the hipbelt). This translates to a size Medium, which means the Eagle will not fit taller hikers.

The Eagle did not do very well in our pack torso collapse tests, mainly because of its short torso length. For consistency, we tested all of the packs on me, and all of them were a size Large except for the Eagle. We tested it with a coiled closed cell foam pad in the main compartment, whereas a folded pad in the pad sleeve would probably have performed better. Consequently, our measured comfortable load carrying capacity of about 18 pounds (8.2 kg) is probably low. With a good fit (pack torso length matching user torso length), the Eagle should carry 20 pounds (9.1 kg) comfortably, and possibly a little more.

The Eagle soared in our pack compression/volume reduction measurements. The front bungie system on the pack reduced pack volume 70%, which is the highest of the thirteen packs tested. The Eagle’s sturdy bungie system is attached to two wings on the pack’s backpanel seam, and wraps completely around the sides and front of the pack. For compressing the pack to reduce its volume, it’s best to compress the pack first, then fill it with gear. A bungie system has the disadvantage of overlaying the pack’s front mesh pockets, making them less convenient to access, but doable by stretching the elastic cords with one hand and reaching in with the other.

A few things we discovered while testing the Eagle are:

• Dust really sticks to the pack’s silnylon fabric (fortunately it is easily rinsed off with water).
• The pack’s padding is apparently open-cell foam because it soaks up water like a sponge when wet.
• The Coolmax face fabric on the suspension system abrades easily.
• The zippered pockets on the bungie system wings are very narrow and not very useful. The narrow pockets can be used to stow valuables or a car key, but we found it hard to find items that fit in the small space.

Comparisons

Comparative specifications can be found in our Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 3. The closest comparisons are the Gossamer Gear Gorilla, and Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet.

Assessment

The Equinox Eagle is a unique pack in several ways, so you need to understand its pros and cons to determine if you like it or not. The main pack body is barrel shaped, rather than rectangular, so it extends out further from your body. The backpanel is a stiffer coarse mesh, which is unusual but not a problem. When loading the pack, one would typically place a sleeping pad into the sleeve behind the backpanel, so body sweat may wet the pad surface but not your gear behind it. The narrow pockets on the bungie system wings are a bit funky; they are narrow and it’s hard to find a good use for them.

The pack’s dominant bungie system on the front of the pack is something that you will either love or hate. As mentioned, the pack body is barrel-shaped, so the bungie system is an integral part of the pack design needed to tighten the load. I am not particularly fond of bungie systems because the elastic cords get in the way when accessing the pack’s pockets. However, Janet likes the system because it compresses all the soft clothing she carries. She would like to see a little extra length on the elastic cords so it can be loosened a little more for loading the pack.

The single size (Medium) of the Eagle also limits the Eagle to shorter hikers. Overall, the Eagle is a bit of a conundrum. If the pack size and feature set appeal to you, the Eagle is a very comfortable ultralight backpack. Janet is 5 feet 2 inches (160 cm) tall; the pack fits her well and it’s very comfortable to carry, so she likes the Eagle a lot. The pack does not come close to fitting me and I don’t like the bungie system, so it’s not my first choice. This demonstrates how important fit and comfort are in choosing a frameless backpack. As always, it’s important to do your research and select the pack that best meets your needs and preferences.

What’s Good

• Comfortable suspension system
• 8 outside pockets
• Top lid covers the top of the pack and its pocket provides extra stowage
• Lots of features
• Very effective volume reduction system
• A great value

What’s Not So Good

• Only available in one size
• Bungie compression system interferes with pocket access
• Narrow wing pockets are not very useful
• Padding soaks up water and surface fabric abrades easily

Recommendations For Improvement

• Offer the pack in at least three sizes
• Use closed-cell foam in the suspension system
• Use a more durable surface fabric on the suspension system

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.

Introduction

The ZPacks Dyneema X 26 frameless backpack and its cousins are as close to a custom frameless pack as it gets. The same pack design is available in either Cuben Fiber or Dyneema X fabric and in three volume sizes. You can specify the torso length and choose from a long list of options, so you end up with a lightweight pack customized to your needs and preferences. Of course you pay for the extras. ZPacks owner Joe Valesko is a thru-hiker himself and has an innovative way of keeping the options light. How does the tested ZPacks Dyneema X 26 compare to other lightweight frameless packs for ultralight backpacking?

Specifications

Description

Like several other packs in this frameless backpack roundup, the measured volume of the ZPacks Dyneema X 26 differs significantly from its specified volume. I measured the volume, including all pockets and extension collar, at 3300 cubic inches (54 L), which is 700 cubic inches (11.5 L) more than its specified 2600 cubic inches (43 L). It is customary to include the volume of all pockets and the extension collar in the total volume of frameless backpacks, and itemize the component volumes for user information. I did not include the volume of the optional top side pocket on my test pack.

Performance

In the pack load carrying capacity tests we conducted as part of our Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011, the Dyneema X 26 was comfortable to about 18 pounds (8.2 kg) without stays and to about 20 pounds (9.1 kg) with stays. The stays did not make much difference. The heaviest load I carried in the pack on a backpacking trip was 21.5 pounds (9.8 kg), with a folded inflatable sleeping pad in the pad sleeve, and the pack carried the load quite well. On the same trip, the pack had plenty of room for gear plus expendables, and enough room left over for another four days’ travel, so the extra volume is evident.

The pack fits me quite well; note in the photos that the shoulder straps are level with my shoulders. My torso length is 20.5 inches (52 cm) and the measured pack torso length is 19 inches (48 cm) by the BPL method (inside of shoulder strap to middle of hipbelt), and 20.5 (52 cm) by the conventional manufacturer method (top of shoulder strap to bottom of hipbelt).

While ZPacks’ features and options are lightweight, they are not high functioning. The side elastic compression cords do not compress the pack very well, resulting in only 32% volume reduction, which is the second lowest in the group of packs I tested. The top compression cord uses a LineLok connector to hold it tight, and the arrangement works very well. The external carbon fiber stays are very lightweight and convenient to insert/remove, but they do not provide as much support as stays on the inside of the backpanel provide on other packs. The add-on mesh side pocket seems quite vulnerable to snagging, but it did survive quite a bit of brush bashing on my trips; I would prefer a Dyneema ripstop pocket to match the other side pockets. The backpanel sleeping pad sleeve is made of Dyneema ripstop fabric, and works just fine, but it seems like a stretchy mesh sleeve would be better. Finally, ZPacks’ hipbelt pouches – essentially a stuff sack – function well and hold a lot, but I would prefer zippered pockets for easier access.

Comparisons

Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 3. The closest comparisons are the Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) CDT, Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider, Gossamer Gear Gorilla, and Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet.

Assessment

The ZPacks Dyneema X 26 is a good pack choice for shorter ultralight trips, or longer trips if you have a low volume gear kit. Dyneema ripstop fabric is an excellent balance of durability, light weight, longevity, and cost. The same pack can be constructed of Cuben Fiber at a similar cost, but you only save 4.4 ounces (125 g) and Cuben Fiber has a limited lifespan. ZPacks’ long list of options is another plus, but it requires you to make a number of decisions. My advice is to choose carefully on the options.

Although ZPacks’ external stays did not add much support in my torso collapse tests, reported in Part 2B of our frameless backpacks state of the market report, they are very lightweight at 1.5 ounces (42.5 g) and they help maintain the pack’s torso length, especially for smaller loads.

For me, the two main shortcomings of the ZPacks Dyneema X 26 packs are: 1) it’s oversized, and 2) the compression system does not reduce pack volume very much for smaller loads. I wanted a frameless pack to match the volume of my gear kit plus expendables, but the pack’s extra 700 cubic inches (11.5 L) caused it to be under filled much of the time. On top of that, the pack’s compression system did not function very well to reduce pack volume for smaller loads. Webbing side compression straps would do the job much better than the pack’s elastic cords.

Overall, the Dyneema X 26 is a strongly constructed, durable frameless pack well suited for ultralight backpacking, especially with lighter loads. Unlike many other packs, this one can be customized with options to meet nearly all of the user’s needs and preferences.

What’s Good

• Durable fabric
• Comfortable suspension system
• Comfortably carries loads less than 25 pounds (11.3 kg)
• Large stretch nylon front pocket for convenient access to items needed on the trail
• Fabric side pockets provide more durability for bushwhacking
• Lots of features and optional accessories
• Very sturdily built, with adequate reinforcements
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size)

What’s Not So Good

• Volume is way over specification
• Optional stays do not provide much additional support
• Elastic cord side compression straps do not compress the pack very much

Recommendations For Improvement

• Accurately state the pack volume, or downsize the pack
• Use side compression straps, rather than elastic cords, to better compress the pack

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.

Specifications

Technical Details

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.

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.

Field Testing

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

• Light weight
• Excellent torsional rigidity in sole
• Flat footbed with negligable ‘arch support’
• Not much dust or debris penetration
• Good balance, not toe heavy

What’s Not So Good

• Thick laces

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.

Introduction

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?

Assessment

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Conclusion

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.

Introduction

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.

Specifications

Description

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.

Performance

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.

Comparisons

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.

Assessment

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

• Excellent volume reduction system
• Durable fabrics
• Excellent removable stay system, the best currently available
• Excellent suspension system for a frameless backpack
• Comfortably carries moderate to heavy loads
• Large fabric front pocket and side pockets for convenient access to items needed on the trail
• Excellent construction, very sturdily built, with adequate reinforcements
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size)
• Hipbelt pockets available

What’s Not So Good

• Volume is way over original specification (corrected)
• Top straps easily slip with smaller loads (corrected in revised model)
• Bottom of side pockets extend to the ground and are subject to abrasion

Recommendations For Improvement

• Accurately state pack volume (done in manufacturer’s new website)
• Offer a smaller volume version of this pack for ultralight backpacking (under development)

Introduction

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?

Specifications and Features

Description

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.

Performance

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.

Assessment

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.

Introduction

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.

Specifications

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.

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.

Field Testing

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

• Lightweight
• Excellent sole
• Soft fabric sides
• Not too much dust or debris penetration
• Comfortable with loose laces

What’s Not So Good

• Thin footbed

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.

Introduction

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?

Specifications

Design and Features

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).

Video tour of the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1.

Performance

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.

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.

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.

Comparisons

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.

Key Points:

• The Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 is a limited production high-end tent, with a premium price tag; the Terra Nova Laser Photon 1 weighs 7.3 ounces (207 g) more and costs about US$430 less.
• The HMG Echo 1 shelter weighs 3.2 ounces (91 g) more, costs half as much as the Laser Ultra, has much better ventilation and versatility, but headroom is limited like the Laser Ultra.
• The Tarptent Moment is a single-wall tent similar in design to the Laser Ultra, weighs 8.3 ounces (235 g) more, has better ventilation, and costs one-fifth as much as the Laser Ultra.
• The MontBell Crescent 1 is a double-wall tent with a similar design, has more floor area, weighs 12.5 ounces (354 g) more, and costs about US$820 less than the Laser Ultra.
• The MLD SoloMid in Cuben Fiber is a floorless shelter with a lot more floor space, better ventilation, weighs 11.5 ounces (326 g) less, has loads of headroom, and costs one-third as much as the Laser Ultra, but it’s not bugproof.
• The Gossamer Gear One weighs 1.5 ounces (43 g) less, has slightly less floor area (but it’s all usable), nearly three times the vestibule area, better ventilation, and costs about US$750 less.
• Overall, every comparative shelter in the table beats the Laser Ultra in cost and matches it or exceeds it in other attributes.

Assessment

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

• One-pound plus one-person double-wall tent; the lightest double-wall tent in the world
• Fast set-up
• Side entry protected by a vestibule
• Improved ventilation
• Gear in the entry vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent
• Wind stable and storm worthy
• Adequate space for one person plus gear

What’s Not So Good

• Very expensive
• Limited headroom
• No storage pockets
• Cuben Fiber floor is vulnerable to punctures

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.

Introduction

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.

Description

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.

Features

• Lid pocket with covered zipper
• Mesh pockets on both sides and front
• Hipbelt pockets (optional)
• Contoured shoulder straps
• Side compression straps
• Waterproof lid design
• Detachable sternum strap
• Load lifters
• Left and right hydration ports
• Internal hang clip for hydration system or keys and valuables
• Attachment system for back pad – fits up to six segments of a Therm-a-Rest Z Lite
• Three elastic bands on each shoulder strap for hydration hose, compass, or other gear that needs to be kept handy
• Trail pole/ice axe holders
• Haul loop

Field Testing

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:

• Impeccable craftsmanship: no loose threads, the right stitches for different areas, and well made.
• Dyneema X Gridstop is used as the main fabric, ensuring a bombproof pack which also survives bushwhacking and off-trail walking for nine days straight.
• The shoulder straps are ideal, one barely feels them as they snuggle up comfortably against the body, never in the way and carrying the weight comfortably.
• The net pockets are an appropriate size and durable; they can comfortably carry a tarp, kuksa, sunglasses, and various other small stuff in the front pocket, while the side pockets hold a 1-liter Platypus and snacks which are easy to reach when wearing the pack.
• The hipbelt transfers and carries the weight satisfactorily, and like the shoulder straps, adapts well to the carrier’s body.
• Rectangular shape, which in combination with a Z Lite pad as a back padding, is comfortable against the body.
• Functions well as a summit or daypack.
• The lid pocket is nearly 100% waterproof and is big enough for map, compass, and book, as well as pen and paper with some room to spare.
• The lid itself is a true innovation, and is an improvement over the common roll-top and cinch lids of other frameless packs.
• It is easy to remove and re-attach the sternum strap and other modular parts one might not need for a particular trip.
• Trail pole holders are placed well. It’s easy to remove or attach poles, even with full front and side mesh pockets.
• Attachment for the back pad is convenient, making a pad easy and quick to insert/remove.
• Roomy enough for a UL base load and food, fuel, and water for up to twelve days.
• Different possibilities to pack/reinforce the rucksack: burrito style with a CCF pad; without any frame; a Therm-a-Rest Z Lite as a half frame inside; with a Z Lite as a backpad and nothing else; both a CCF pad and a Z Lite.

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.

Comparison

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.

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.

Assessment

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.

Specifications

What’s Good

• Excellent craftsmanship.
• Four different torso lengths and two sizes, as well as customization options allow for individual, customized packs.
• Durable, lightweight, and high-quality materials used.
• Comfortably carries loads between 5 and 12 kg.
• If a Z Lite is used as a back pad: comfy to carry and adds a bit of ventilation.
• Comfortable shoulder straps and hipbelt.
• Durable mesh pockets offer lots of space.

What’s Not So Good

• Hipbelt pockets not included.
• Users in humid and hot environments might lack good back ventilation.

Improvements

• The side compression system could be improved to allow the pack to become flatter when loaded with minimal gear.

Disclosure: The author and/or Backpacking Light purchased this product through normal retail channels with no obligation to the manufacturer for providing a review.

Introduction

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.

Design and Features

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:

• Waterproof – Hydrostatic head – 10,000mm (JIS-L 1092)
• Breathability – MVTR – 7,000g/m/day (JIS L 1099/A1)

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.

Storm Jacket

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.

Storm Pants

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.

Performance

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.

Waterproofness

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.

Breathability

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.

Comfort

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.

Durability

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.

Assessment

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.

Specifications

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.

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?

Specifications

Description

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.

Performance

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.

Comparisons

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.

Assessment

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

• Excellent volume reduction system
• Durable fabric and mesh
• Removable stay system included, one of the lightest stay systems currently available
• Excellent suspension system for a frameless backpack
• Comfortably carries moderate loads
• Large mesh front and side pockets for convenient access to items needed on the trail
• Excellent construction, very sturdily built, with adequate reinforcements
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size); four torso lengths available
• Large hipbelt pockets included
• Bottom is flat so pack stands up by itself
• Hydration sleeve positions the weight higher and makes the reservoir more accessible

What’s Not So Good

• Pack is not waterproof as claimed
• Outer fabric absorbs water
• Stays less supportive with heavy loads
• At 25.5 ounces (723 g), the Windrider is on the heavy side compared to its competitors

Recommendations For Improvement

• Offer a contoured tubular stay
• Reduce the weight of the pack