Articles (2020)

Introduction

ULA recently introduced the Epic, an updated version of the Backpacking Light Arctic Ultra pack. The Arctic Ultra was originally created in 2006 for the 1000+ mile epic journey undertaken by Roman Dial, Jason Geck, and BPL’s own Ryan Jordan. The pack was a dry bag harness designed by Roman and built for the adventure by ULA.

After the adventure, the pack design was refined and offered in a limited supply through Backpacking Light. I purchased one of the Arctic Ultras for a trip that ended up falling through. I used the pack some, but in typical gear head fashion later decided I didn’t really need it and sold it. A few months later, I was kicking myself for selling the pack and ordered another one. This one happened to be the last large Arctic Ultra that BPL had.

Long story short, after using the pack for a number of trips and going with smaller packs for most trips and larger packs for backpack hunting trips, I again sold the Arctic Ultra. As every gear head knows, shortly after you get rid of something, you wish you hadn’t. So when ULA, now under new ownership introduced the Epic, I knew I had to have one.

Pack Design and Uses

The Epic and its predecessor were designed for use with a dry bag or similar storage bag. There is no pack bag per se on the Epic. This allows for use of bags of varying capacity as well as packing bulky loads such as pack rafts. This pack design excels for long, self supported journeys and pack raft adventures. For shorter trips or thru hikes with frequent re-supply there are better pack choices.

Differences in the Epic and Arctic Ultra

The biggest difference in the two packs is the attachment of the shoulder suspension to the hipbelt. The Arctic Ultra attaches directly to the slots in a POE Pneumo dry bag while the Epic attaches directly to the hipbelt. More discussion on the pros and cons of this below.

Both packs have a vertical mesh zippered front pocket. The Epic’s pocket is a bellows design, which makes it much more useful when carrying a full dry bag. Spacious hipbelt pockets are similar in both packs. Suspension appears unchanged. The suspension consists of a foam back panel and two removable aluminum stays.

The Arctic Ultra came with two POE Pneumo dry bags, a 50L and a 65L. When the Epic was first introduced, it came without a dry bag, but now includes a Sea to Summit 65L Big River Dry Sack and two removable 1L side pockets that attach to the compression straps. The pack reviewed for this article did not have either the Big River Dry Sack or the side pockets.

What Works

• The Epic was comfortable with loads well exceeding the recommended weight limit.
• Bellows front pocket is a lot more useful than the previous flat pocket.
• Spacious hipbelt pockets keep essentials close at hand.
• D-rings on shoulder harness are convenient for binoculars or cameras.

What Doesn’t Work

• The daisy chain on the back side of the compression panel would be much more useful if it were on the backpanel instead.
• Lack of a haul strap on the top of the pack.

Features

• Internal frame
• Beavertail style compression panel
• Contoured shoulder straps
• Zippered mesh bellow front pocket
• Quad buckle hipbelt with reverse pull tensioning
• Dual hipbelt pockets
• Compression straps, two on each side, one on top
• Dyneema gridstop fabric
• Removable aluminum stays
• Bottom compression straps for packraft, tent or sleeping pad
• Daisy chain on back side of compression panel
• D-rings on shoulder harness
• Shoulder strap bungee system for bear spray or water bottle

Specifications

Performance:

The Epic is rated at 40 pounds max load, and it handled that weight with ease. I had carried up to 60 pounds in the BPL Arctic Ultra, so I tried that weight in the Epic as well. It carried 60 pounds as comfortably as any pack I have used at that weight. While higher than the recommended maximum, I see no reason the Epic wouldn’t hold up to occasional loads this heavy.

The hipbelt snugged up tightly with good weight transfer to the hips. The wide hipbelt provided good support and comfort. Shoulder straps were padded enough, but not too much, and the load lifters kept the weight off the trapezius muscles.

The aluminum stays are removable, but there’s little reason to remove them other than to bend for a custom fit. This isn’t a pack I would choose for a 15- to 20-pound load, and for anything above 20 pounds, the stays provide a lot of support.

The workmanship was excellent on the Epic and the design changes were positive. One problem I ran into with the Arctic Ultra was in the shoulder strap attaching to the dry bag rather than the hipbelt. This was done to achieve a more dynamic suspension for navigating rough terrain, but I found that with a full dry bag, I had little or no shoulder strap adjustment. I actually made extensions for my Arctic Ultra shoulder straps. The Epic straps are sewn directly to the hipbelt, have plenty of length, and I encountered no problems. Another advantage of the new design is the ability to secure awkward loads without using a dry bag. I often use a shelter that is heated with a wood stove and the Epic allows gathering firewood more easily than the Arctic Ultra did.

The spacious twin hipbelt pockets easily held a camera, snacks and other essentials. The bungees on the shoulder straps worked well to secure a can of bear spray or a smaller water bottle. When I tried a 28-ounce bottle, the bungees needed to be pulled to the max or else they would let go.

Recommendations for Improvement

Other than adding a haul loop on the top of the pack and relocating the daisy chain to the back panel from the back of the compression panel, I saw little need for change. This is an improved version of a proven design.

Introduction

The Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 has the lowest trail weight of all the company’s two-person double-wall tents at 3.44 pounds (1.56 kg). An interesting pole design adds room to make it more livable inside. Will the Vapor Light be one we want to share, or will it turn out to be Vapor Ware?

Design and Features

The Sierra Designs Vapor Light is a single-door, front entry tent that uses a hubbed pole system, ala the Big Agnes Seedhouse tents which I have years of experience with. But the Vapor Light adds something to the recipe with its trademarked Spider Hub. This Spider Hub, which is at the front of the tent, has a couple of short poles angling back towards the center of the tent. The ends of these poles clip to the inner tent body, holding the sides out to create steeper sides and more room inside.

Like many tents these days Sierra Designs has opted to use the DAC Jake’s Foot anchoring system with the Vapor Light. The poles snap into the Feet at each corner of the tent. Then the body clips to the poles with five pole-clips and a single H-clip under the Spider Hub. One thing I discovered while using the Vapor Light is that the optional footprint is easiest to clip to the Jake’s Feet before placing the tent on my desired spot, as the ends of the footprint have to be snapped on the bottoms of the Feet. This is the first time I have used a footprint with a Jake’s Foot tent.

The rain fly sits on top of the poles and hooks to the Jake’s Feet. Straps at the ends allow the fly to be tensioned after set-up. Hook-and-loop tabs inside the fly attach to the poles at the guy-points to add strength.

Two stakes are used to pull the vestibule out. The vestibule has a good sized door which makes entering and exiting a breeze, rather than an exercise in contortion.

There are no vents on the Vapor Light’s rain fly. Pullouts on the side allow quite a bit of ventilation, and the top of the vestibule door can be opened to create draw. But it needs to be closed in rain, as it does not leave the inside protected.

Sierra Designs sends just enough stakes to hold the four corners and the vestibule. While it does send two guy-lines that can be used, you must bring a couple more stakes of your own…

Performance

I used the Vapor Trail four nights in California and one in Minnesota. I had beautiful weather for all the trips, which is unfortunate as I like to get them in a storm or two. I did get to have it in some strong winds in both the Angeles National Forest and in the San Gorgonio Wilderness where I was set up on eight to ten feet (3 m) of snow at 9,230 feet (2,813 m) elevation.

The trip in the snow was close to being a disaster due to me not reading the information from Sierra Designs well enough. The rep had asked me if I would like a footprint. Knowing that the upcoming climb was supposed to be clear of storms I said “Sure, I will set up with just the footprint and fly in the snow.” I like to set up this way when there are no bugs to bother me. The night before the trip, I decided to take the as yet unpacked footprint out of its stuff sack. Thank goodness I did! This is when I noticed that the footprint clips to the Jake’s Foot that is attached to the tent. I almost went up the mountain with a fly, footprint and poles, none of which could attach to each other. I will not bother with footprints for any other Jake’s Foot equipped tents.

With all the parts of the tent along, the Vapor Light was great at our base camp at High Creek. It only got down to 23 F (-5 C), but the wind blew pretty well during the night and again as the sun came up. I did not have a bit of condensation build up in the tent.

I asked my brother to meet me on a trip to Sawmill Campground, in order to test the tent with two people. He did not respond in time, so I went alone. The afternoon and evening were very windy, and I had to add a guy-line to the side of the Vapor Light that the wind was clobbering. As I only had the six stakes that Sierra Designs provided, I made do with a stick I pounded into the ground with a rock. After the sun went down, clouds moved in, completely blanketing the campground with fog at 5,200 feet (1,585 m). It stayed foggy until I drove out of it the next day. I was reading 91% humidity during the early morning hours, but with the top of the vestibule door opened and the wind, I again stayed completely dry inside.

A last trip to Lake Morena County Park for the Annual Day Zero PCT Kick Off saw me set up near the lake the day after a rain, sleet, and hail storm. While the day was gorgeous, the humidity that night was horrendous. I had to leave the Kickoff early Saturday morning to meet my brother-in-law for a hike further north on the PCT. At 4:00 AM, a fog hung over the lake and all the campers, and the Vapor Light was completely soaked inside and out. As even my backpack, which was sitting in the vestibule, was coated with moisture, I can’t fault the venting system of the Vapor Light. I heard later that the single-wall tent users got creamed. Thank you, double-wall! The wet night was worth it to be able to meet so many of our BPL members. Hi, guys. (Of course most won’t read this until after they finish their 2,650-mile goal.)

Assessment

The Vapor Light is a solid performer. I found that the Spider Hub pole design works as advertised. It does add room inside making it more comfortable to sit up and maneuver in the tent. The floor space is a bit cramped for two sleepers though, and the single front door would make it difficult for one person to exit in the night without disturbing the other person.

I feel that the Vapor Light would really benefit from a top vent on the fly as the vestibule cannot be used for this purpose in rain or snow. The other – weightier – option would to extend the vestibule so that when opened at the top, the inner tent is still protected from falling precip.

Dare to Compare

Other single-door, front entry tents that compare to the Vapor Light are the Fly Creek SL2, Seedhouse 2 and Seedhouse SL2 from Big Agnes, and the Nemo Espri 2. While the Vapor Light’s pole design makes it roomier than all the Big Agnes tents, the Espri 2 is roomier yet. The Espri has the best ventilation of them too. The Vapor Light weighs less than the Seedhouse and Espri, but is heavier than the Seedhouse SL2 and much heavier than the Fly Creek SL2. For durability, it looks to me that the Vapor Light and Espri are tied as they have pretty robust material and are made for wet weather (at least, more so than the others).

What’s Good

• Spider Hub pole design adds noticeable roominess
• Minimal clips make for fast set-up
• Handles wind better than most of this style

What’s Not So Good

• A bit cramped for two people
• Inner tent not protected from rain when vestibule door is open at top
• Can’t be set up in fly only mode

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.

Introduction

This separate review provides additional descriptive and performance information on the Patagonia Down Sweater. Read our article Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010 for a state-of-the-market analysis and comparative specifications and performance for a range of ultralight down jackets.

The popular Patagonia Down Sweater has been around for awhile and has evolved somewhat over the years. When Backpacking Light reviewed the Patagonia Down Sweater in 2005 it was insulated with 700 fill power down, giving it 0.9 inch (2.3 cm) of single-layer loft, the shell was 1.3 oz/yd² (44 g/m²) 20 denier triple ripstop polyester shell with DWR, and the only features were a full-height front zipper, a single zippered chest pocket, drawcord hem, and elastic cuffs. It weighed 11.1 oz/315 g for men’s size Large and the MSRP was $165.

Since the Patagonia Down Sweater is one of the early ones on the market, it is interesting to compare the present version with the old one, and also look at it in comparison with the numerous lightweight three-season down jackets on the market today.

Description

Patagonia has put a lot of emphasis on recycled content in their garments, so the current Down Sweater’s shell and lining are 22d 1.4 oz/yd² (47.5 g/m²) ripstop 100% recycled polyester with DWR, which is slightly heavier than older versions. The fabrics have a very soft hand and are wind and water resistant.

The jacket is insulated with 3 ounces (85 g) of 800 fill power down, giving it a measured single-layer loft of 0.7 inch (1.9 cm), which is low.

Performance

I found the Down Sweater’s fit very much to my liking, as shown in the photos. Many outdoor jackets are designed for more slender people and are too tight in the hips for other women like me. The Patagonia Down Sweater is sized to fit a “wider” range of people (pun intended).

The features on the Down Sweater are fairly standard (see the list below in the specifications table). I never use a hem drawcord – the jacket fits snugly around my hips without it – so I can do without that feature. The jacket has a large zippered stretch mesh pocket on the inside, which the jacket will stuff into. It’s handy, but the opening is small, which makes it more difficult to put things in and take them out. I would prefer to have a pair of drop pockets on the inside.

In my field testing, I found the jacket to be only moderately warm. That agrees with results from our jacket warmth testing we did for the state-of-the-market article cited at the beginning of this article. The Patagonia Down Sweater contains only 3 ounces (85 g) of down, which is low.

Comparisons

Our article Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010 provides complete specifications and ratings for the Patagonia Down Sweater in comparison to a range of other lightweight down jackets. The jackets most similar to this one are the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Downlight Sweater, Marmot Venus Jacket, Isis Slipstream Jacket, and GoLite Demaree Canyon Jacket and Anorak.

Assessment

Although the Patagonia Down Sweater has been around a long time and is very popular, its shell, warmth, features, and value are only average or less compared to similar jackets. Its best attributes are its sizing and fit. This is not a jacket I would take backpacking because it doesn’t have a lot of warmth for its weight. It is a nice jacket for day outings and trips to town in cool weather.

The limited edition Down Sweater is a different story. It’s a puffier jacket with more loft, has a very thin shell fabric, and weighs just 9.3 ounces (264 g) in size Medium. It’s lofty, warm, and very light, and definitely well suited for backpacking. It’s the Down Sweater we would really like to see from Patagonia.

Specifications and Features – Patagonia Down Sweater

Specifications and Features – Patagonia Special Edition Down Sweater

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.

These two packs were designed by Carol McDermott, a New Zealand climber now in Europe, and must be seen as alpine climbing packs for Europe, not as mainstream American walking packs. This has greatly influenced their design: they are made of some extremely tough fabric and are almost entirely lacking in all the frills normally found on American packs. Why? Because they have to take being hauled up cliff faces on the end of a rope. The weather in Europe (and especially the UK) is never as reliable as in America either – unless you count a very high probability of wet weather as being ‘reliable.’ So in addition to being made of tough waterproof fabric, the majority of the seams and fittings on the back of the packs are welded and sometimes taped, not sewn.

The harness consists of an 8.0-mm diameter 7001-T6 aluminium alloy U-shaped rod, the same as is used on the Lightwave packs (Lightwave is a sister company), plus a very firm foam back. The hip belt is simple, with 50-mm (2-in) webbing and buckles. Even the draw cords on the light waterproof nylon throat are climbing-oriented: they are 4-mm Rivory-Joanny accessory cord and can be used in an emergency as abseil slings. Despite all this strength – or perhaps because of it – Crux do not quote a recommended load for these packs. I guess if a climber can get the gear in, he’ll carry it?

The clean exterior means no mesh pockets on the sides or the back and no bulging back pocket. The outer surface is essentially a smooth tube of almost indestructible Kevlar/Cordura fabric, the lid is of the same fabric, and the base is a double layer. Anchor points are reinforced with bonded patches (for sliding over the rock). The insides of the attachment points are all waterproofed. There are ‘side pockets,’ but they are low-cut and designed to take tent poles and glacier wands. They are not big enough to actually hold gear. The website claims the side pockets are ‘stretch,’ but the only stretch is the elastic binding along the top edges. They do have grommetted drain holes. The throat is light, waterproof nylon, but is hidden under the lid and not exposed. I know some American packs boast about their strong fabric, but this combination is in a class of its own.

Internally the frame consists an 8.0-mm diameter 7001-T6 aluminium alloy U-shaped rod frame. It looks like Easton tent pole material, but lacks the brand and is a bit more bendable. Getting it out is a bit of a wrestle, but quite doable. You don’t need to get it out to alter the tilt at the base though. The back has a good slab of Lycra-covered moulded foam, but no sheet of hard plastic. The lack of a plastic sheet does not seem to be a problem, however: the foam is quite solid. The shoulder straps are not wide, but seem quite adequate with well-padded edges. The hip belt has wiggles in it to try to conform to waist lines and is only 70 mm (2.75 in) wide. The webbing and buckle are 50 mm (2 in) wide.

There is a bladder sleeve inside the main bag. The lid has fully-taped seams and a pocket with a solid waterproof zip – but then, it does rain in the UK. There is a key hook inside the pocket and a not-hugely-obvious zipped security pocket on the underside of the lid. The lid is removable and can be raised up above the nylon throat on its straps should you wish to tuck a tent or a rope under it. There are two ice axe attachments on the back of each pack.

The measured values for weight and volume for both the AK47 and the AK57 came out very close to specification – close enough to make no difference.

These are not packs for the casual walker of easy trails: they just wouldn’t make sense. But for anyone looking for a serious alpine pack, or a pack for some very serious arguments with sabre-toothed jungle, these are very good. You might need to pay more attention to picking the appropriate torso length than you would otherwise expect, of course, and it would be best to try one on and check the length before you buy. We have included them in this survey because they meet the selection criteria, and it is always interesting to see the opposite end of the spectrum from the silnylon creations.

Crux AK47 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
AK47	Above average	Very rugged alpine pack

We found this pack to be very small in torso length, which caused us a bit of a problem until we understood what was going on, and our trouble was compounded by the selection of a Size 1 version – essentially a Small. The torso length is short compared to most other packs because it is designed to have the hip belt up around your waist, leaving room for a full climbing harness around your hips below the pack. Once you adapt to this, it all makes sense. However, a size #1 is probably a bit small for most people, except for serious climbing.

The hip belt seemed quite adequate – except that it did not really sit down on Sue’s waist very well, and was marginal on mine. The attachment points for the load lifters seemed a bit close to the pack as well. Both of these problems are entirely due to the size of the pack, as described above. When used as a climbing pack (ie with a harness below the pack) it started to work much better, although I would still prefer a size #2 if I needed to carry a lot of gear. However, it may be noted that I was able to get the full load of Test Gear into the pack, despite the apparently small size.

Both packs include two ice axe attachments. The top straps for these are partially covered by the lid straps when not in use, but I don’t think this matters in practice. What is nice is that the bottom loops are well clear of the bottom of the pack, so the ice axe head does not dig holes in a wooden floor when you put the pack down.

Crux AK57 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
AK57	Above average	Very rugged alpine pack

This is the big brother to the AK47 – and we tested a size #2 rather than a size #1 just to be sure. With the larger size, the torso length was fine, and the hip belt sat on my hips and Sue’s hips rather better. The load lifters also worked much better. Quite definitely all this was a result of getting the right torso length. The bag swallowed the Test Gear quite easily too, even though the measured volume was not that great. I think the shape of the bag was better able to handle the lumps. There was nothing put in the lid pocket, although there is quite a bit of room available there – about 3 litres, in fact.

This larger unit has an extra feature over the AK47. There are what look like extremely tough ‘panic handles’ at the bottom on each side. You can see them in the right hand photo, especially the one on the right hand side of the pack. No, they are not really for panic :-), they are for holding skis. You drop the ski into this loop and use the top of the compression strap on the side of the pack to hold the top end of the ski. This is easy to do because the top end of the strap is attached with a side-release buckle (just visible in the other two photos). The loops are tough because skis do often have metal bits and edges which can rub, although I doubt skis could do much damage to this pack fabric. The loops are not shown in the company photo at the left: I suspect they may be a recent addition to the design.

The middle photos for both packs show the haulage loop. This is wide – wide enough that one person holding the pack can easily pass it up to a second person to grab. Function drives design.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

This is a small start-up ‘cottage industry’ company. They supplied one pack, almost custom made, as they were not yet into full production mode. They sought comment on this pack and also sought our assessment on a second frameless pack not listed here. The owner of the company was willing to listen and act on preliminary feedback, which is always encouraging.

Elemental Horizons Northern Lite Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Northern Lite	Average	Light, but still in development

The sample pack received was made using the optional silicone coated 1.9-oz fabric; stock packs are normally made with urethane-coated 1.9-oz fabric. (The 1.9-oz silnylon is heavier than the common 1.1-oz silnylon used on tarps and tents.) The design as reviewed features a roll-top rather than a lid, but a lid may become an option later. The hip belt features small pockets. The frame consists of a narrow U-shaped aluminium rod sewn to a fairly stiff but thin layer of closed cell foam. The slightly startling feature is the back mesh pocket: unlike on most packs this one is huge! The photos here suggest this fairly well, and a more graphic photo of it was shown under Pack Volume measurements in Part 1. The side pockets are also pretty big and have bungee cord across the top.

The pack is quoted as holding 58 L and was measured at 52 L for the main bag, but the main bag swallowed up the Test Gear without any trouble at all. In fact, the roll-top was left a bit below the top of the frame, as can be seen from the photos here. As mentioned in Part 1A, it may well be that I could have squeezed the full 58 L in if I had tried, so a fair bit of uncompressed gear could go in this one. In fact, it is possible to fill this pack so the top of the roll-top towers above your head. I suggest this might be unwise if you are on tricky ground, but it should be OK on easy trails. However, if you choose to do this, be aware that the fabric is quite light: you don’t want to shred the pack from overload.

The bottom of the pack is sensibly square, so that if it is packed reasonably it can stand upright. There are some criss-crossed compressions straps which can be used to cinch the whole main bag in if the load is small (or to help the silnylon cope?). I suggest it may be best to lie the pack down on the harness face when tightening the compression straps. The prototype unit tested had a single strap and buckle covering both the back pocket and roll top. I think there should be two straps here – or at least two buckles – and told the owner of the company this. This change may happen on the production version.

The shoulder straps worked fine, but I did have some trouble with the tips of the straps. They are rather solid on the unit sent to me and poked me in the ribs, but on reporting this to the manufacturer was assured he would correct the problem. The haulage loop at the top was sewn in place with the ends very close: this was quite uncomfortable when picking up a full load. The owner assured me he would fix this as well. Clearly, some details of the design were still evolving when the sample pack was sent to me, and you should check on the status of these changes before buying. It may be that in the early stages of production, you could specify some of these details.

The hip belt was wide enough and long enough to suit me, but not too big. It fitted around my hips quite well. Note that in addition to having three torso sizes for the pack, there are three hip belt sizes available. Yes, you can mix and match. There are big zipped mesh hip belt pockets, but being mesh, they are not waterproof of course. I am not sure what I could safely put in them. There was some mismatch in the webbing: the hip belt webbing was generous; the shoulder strap webbing was very long, but the sternum strap was almost too short for little me. (The short sternum strap was a recurrent theme with many packs.) Check this with the owner of the company too.

The target market for this pack has to be the more experienced lightweight long-distance walker. The fabric is unlikely to cope with a novice or school kid.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

We tested three Lightwave packs from the UK, and while the three clearly come from the same stable, they have some noticeable differences from American packs. The biggest difference is a reflection of the weather in the UK hills – sometimes raining, other times worse. These packs feature very serious waterproofing: waterproof fabric, taped or welded seams and waterproof zips. Where there seems to be a hole in the fabric (eg for an ice axe attachments point) you find that the inside of the hole is fully taped over. The attachment points for webbing are sealed on the inside, and the logos are done by bonding extra fabric onto the fabric of the bag, rather than by embroidery through the fabric. The exception to this extreme proofing are the seams down the corners of the harness face – perhaps their experience is that these seams don’t get as much water on them. These seams are sewn with tape over the selvage.

The fabric on all three packs is the same: 420 denier Dynatech fabric on the back panel and structural areas, 300 denier micro-ripstop polyester on the main front areas, and 40 denier ripstop nylon for internal fabrics. Never mind the fancy names – it’s good fabric. ‘Airmesh’ is used “on all body contact areas,” which means the foam is covered with something like a light Lycra. It tends to grip nicely on clothing. The pockets are a light stretch Lycra, but with solid elasticated edge bindings.

The harness system on all three packs is similar to that on the Crux packs: an aluminium tube bent into a sort of U-shape (or M-shape) on the inside and a solid slab of foam down the back. None of the packs have hard plastic sheets across the back, but this did not seem to be a problem for any of them. The shoulder straps were quite curved, but the sternum strap is meant to help hold that curve. That generally worked OK. The straps were suitably padded on the face and at the edges. The hip belts were novel and will be discussed separately under each pack.

All three Lightwave packs took the Test Gear quite well, with a little room to spare. You will notice that our volume measurements were all quite close to the manufacturer-claimed volumes. Perhaps this is just as well, as the packs do not have a lot of overflow capacity in the form of external pockets. But, it is nice to see the honest match on volumes.

The packs do have provision for hydration bladders. You can see the exit port for the hose between the shoulder straps: a sort of oval black rubber grommet. The red haulage loop obscures it in two of the photos. Hopefully it will help keep rain out.

One target market for these packs would be walkers who have to deal with a lot of bad weather – those welded seams are waterproof (that figures of course, coming from the UK!). They are a bit expensive for novices and school kids, but I think all the rest of the market would find these quite suitable.

Lightwave UltraHike 60 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
UltraHike 60	Recommended	For those needing waterproof

This pack has a hip belt very different from other brands. For a start, the hip belt is effectively split, as shown in the middle photo. In addition some control of the angle of tilt of the hip belt is possible, with top and bottom adjustment straps which work separately. Finally the hip belt is reinforced with a backing of flexible sheet plastic. The end result works very well, even if it is a shade complex.

The main bag itself is clean, like its alpine cousin the Crux. There are fittings for two ice axes and short stretch pockets at the sides for tent poles and glacier wands. You wouldn’t try to actually store any other sort of gear in these pockets. The throat is silnylon but a little short. Curiously the top draw cord runs in a huge tunnel, far wider than I think is needed. There is a deep narrow bladder sleeve inside the pack which could serve as a sort of security pocket – there are no other security pockets on the pack unfortunately. The lid straps start low down on the back, so the lid can adjust over a wide range. The lid itself is not huge, but it does have elasticated sides which make it adapt to whatever (within limits) is under it.

There are some stretch side pockets. They aren’t high, but they would take a wet poncho or similar quite happily. They have elasticated top edges so small items should not fall out easily. There is no back pocket of any sort. Part of me wants to cheer this, but the other part regrets that there is nowhere to store flat sit mats on the back. A small omission.

The fabric pattern on the main bag makes it look as though the bottom of the bag sags down, but this is mainly an optical illusion in my opinion. There are a number of small tape attachment loops scattered over the bag, big enough to take 2-mm or 3-mm bungee cord. You could use these to hold crampons or other small things. There are number of these tape loops down the sides of the bag, carrying light climbing cord which serves as a compression system.

Lightwave Fastpack 50 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Fastpack 50	Above average	For those needing waterproof

It might be easiest to simply describe this pack as a slightly smaller and slightly simpler version of the Ultrahike 60. Really, that does describe it quite well.

However, it has an interesting feature. Instead of lots of zig-zags of cord up the sides as compression straps, it has just a few zigzags of webbing – visible in the photos. The top connection on the webbing is an adjustable side release buckle rather than a simple ladder lock. Right at the bottom of the side of the pack there is another compression strap with a curious looped strip of tough fabric inside it. These features are just visible in the photos, especially the right hand one.

At first glance this bottom fabric strip makes no sense, the position of the webbing strap near the bottom does not seem all that useful either, and the side release buckle at the top seems superfluous. Ah, but try mounting a pair of skis on the sides of this pack, and all will become clear. The bottom strap, the tough loop of fabric there, and the side release buckle at the top are all for holding skis! And they do that very nicely too.

The pack may not be large enough for a long ski trip using tents, but it certainly could handle a bit of ski touring if you can keep the volume of your gear down to a minimum. Alternately, the pack could handle hut-based skiing very well, with plenty of room for emergency gear. OK, not everyone wants to do this, but it is nice to see a pack which is suitably equipped for it.

Lightwave Wildtrek 55w Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Wildtrek 55w	Average	For those needing waterproof

The ‘w’ at the end of the name of this denotes a Women’s pack, although I can’t see why a man could not use this equally well. Just tweak the curvature of the struts near the bottom a little, to suit.

This pack is a bit different from the previous two, although the superficial appearance is very similar. An up-market version maybe? The biggest difference is probably the waterproof zip around the bottom edge, between the red and the grey in the left-hand photo. Inside there is a ‘sealed’ nylon bag attached to the zip. My previous comments about how useful such an arrangement would be for me stand: I can see no use for it. Fortunately the nylon bag which makes the bottom compartment is loose and can be squashed down flat at the bottom of the pack: you can have your cake and eat it too.

The foam back felt very firm at the start when we took it out for a day trip, but we got used to that very quickly. In fact, it rode very comfortably on both our backs and hips. Part of this is due to the good profile of the back foam, but another part may be due to the more complex hip belt adjustment on this pack. As you can see in the insert at the bottom left of the composite photo, there are top and bottom adjustment straps on the hip belt (both sides). These allow you to alter the cant (tilt) of the hip belt – a bit anyhow. I think it works somewhat; whether it is really worth all the extra complexity is another matter. I honestly don’t know.

Also in that insert to the right of the buckles is an innocent-looking bit of grey nylon. You might think it is just part of the hip belt adjustment, but it is far more than that. Concealed behind the surface fabric is a zipped security pocket and overlaying it another security pocket closed with hook&loop tape. You can’t get much in there, but you certainly could conceal various plastic cards, car keys and paper money. Few would think to look there.

This pack has the strap across the bottom edge and the side release buckle at the top of the compression webbing, like the Fastpack, but it does not have the fabric reinforcing strip. Obviously it too can carry skis, although it wasn’t meant for this. It would be nice if they added the bit of fabric to the bottom strap because as it stands, the ski will rub across the waterproof zip.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Granite Gear makes packs, bags, duffel bags, etc: things to put gear in. The company has recently changed hands, so we were dealing with an enthusiastic new owner. Like many other small companies, the packs have a distinctive appearance. We gathered that some packs are being upgraded and may have changed slightly or be about to change from what we have tested. However, I doubt that there will be huge differences.

Granite Gear Escape AC 60 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Escape AC 60	Above average	Adjustable torso length

The design of this pack’s bag part is not that out of the ordinary, but the harness is very interesting, so we’ll deal with that part first. In short, it has an adjustable harness based on a tough, moulded sheet of plastic. The adjustment for torso length is done by unhooking the shoulder strap from one slot and hooking it into another slot. It’s sufficiently novel that I have included a detail shot of the adjustment mechanism in the photos. In the photo the right hand shoulder strap has been unhooked and you can see the metal buckle which acts as the anchor.

Getting to this adjustment is not easy, but once you figure out that the top of the plastic sheet is concealed by some fabric held in place by hook&loop fastening, you are on your way. You do have to disconnect quite a few straps along the way – the first one or two times anyhow. You also probably need to remove the floating lid, which is an exercise in itself. Once you have access to the panel, you can set the torso length to a number of values, as determined by the slots you can see. Just what the top slots (set wide apart) are for I am not sure – someone the size of a grizzly bear maybe! Having moved the metal buckle into the next slot, you then have to reassemble the harness system. It isn’t that hard to do, and the ability to match the torso length to your body is good. It would help if they included an instruction sheet with each pack though.

The padding on the back looks like some Doctor Scholes massage foot bed foam covered by someone’s black see-through negligee – but the mesh is actually quite strong and the padding is comfortable. The shoulder straps and hip belt are quite comfortable too. Note that there is a range of hip belts sizes and you can exchange them. The adjustment straps on the shoulder straps are long… very long. The sternum strap is long enough too – and you will need to use it with this pack. There is no stupid whistle on the sternum strap. The load-lifter straps work well, and have excellent thumb loops at the ends. You can see how I am ‘resting’ my arms using them. I like doing this, and it does help a bit with the balance of any pack.

Now for the bag part. This too is a little odd-ball. The bag itself is fairly standard, but all the bits around it are different. Where most packs have webbing straps, the Escape AC 60 has cord, with cord adjusters and buckles. Yes, the cord can be adjusted the same as webbing. Does the use of cord cut any weight? I doubt it very much. It works about the same, but I would be just as happy with light grosgrain myself. Anyhow, there are quite a few of these bits of cord around the pack.

What’s not obvious is that the bottom of the bag can expand a bit, so you need to pack carefully to make sure the bottom end is filled up. Since the capacity is rather less than claimed, you need to use every bit of space there. The throat is of medium length – certainly adequate. There is a conventional webbing strap to go over the throat under the lid. There is a zipped sleeve for a hydration system inside – the hose has to go through a hole at the top of the sleeve. The sleeve would be useful for reserve maps maybe, or as a deep security pocket.

The pack does have two ice axe loops at the bottom, but no dedicated straps at the top to hold the shaft. Perhaps you could wind the lid straps (cords) around the shaft to hold it up. There are several other attachment points scattered around the body of the pack as well.

There is a back pocket with a central vertical waterproof zip. Exactly why it has to be waterproof is not clear, as the black sides of the back pocket are stretch mesh. Why the zip has to be vertical is not clear either: it does mean things can fall out when you undo the zip fully. It’s quite a large back pocket too. More curious is the little pocket below the back pocket. It too has a zip closure, but the zip is at the bottom of the pocket. Surely an invitation to disaster – things would fall out? It turns out that this little pocket, which has a key-clip inside, is meant for holding a pack-cover (an optional extra). Not so curious after all! The side pockets are a double layer affair: there is a fabric pocket with a light mesh one outside it. The opening of the mesh pocket is tilted forwards: ‘quick-draw water bottles’ maybe. The fabric pockets seem capacious when the main bag is empty, but there is little room left once the main bag is full. Why manufacturers even bother with these flat side pockets puzzles me.

In keeping with the central zip on the back pocket, the lid also has a central zip, right on top. Fortunately it is a waterproof zip (if you trust such things) as there is no cover over it. The position on top does make some sense though: you get good access inside the pocket without things falling out. There is a key clip in there, but no security pocket.

The pack held all the Test Gear load in the main bag, but it was close to full. I was also able to get most of my gear for a (real) Wollemi trip into it except for 40 m of rope and slings, but it is not a big pack by any means. The pack rode fine in the field, once I got the torso length set and all the other adjustments to suit me.

Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Vapor Flash Ki	Average	Neat, but heavy

This Vapor Flash Ki is a Women’s pack: the Vapor Flash is a Men’s pack, slightly larger in volume. The website claims a 48 L capacity for the Short model, which is what we tested. The hip belt comes in four sizes: Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large.

No doubt about it: this pack looks neat. The strips of tougher fabric down each back corner, combined with the compression straps, provide very useful strengthening. The colour was also rather nice. The torso length is fixed, but the hip belt is removable, although that is not obvious at first. Removing the hip belt is easy once you realise the padding on each wing sort of locks the hip belt in place. That ‘lock’ is reinforced by webbing and buckles at the sides.

We were able to get most of the Test Gear inside the main bag provided the rolled-up mat was strapped on the outside. In other words, the volume is rather small: we measured just 37 L in the main bag and lid. There is no back pocket. Well, if you are travelling ultralight it may well have enough capacity, but an ordinary lightweight walker might have some trouble.

The floating lid is a bit strange. It could go up a bit if you really filled the throat section of the main bag, but it is threaded onto the load-lifter straps, and it can’t be raised very far unless you unthread it from those straps. Doing so looked impossible at first, as the ends of the straps seem to have a strip of hook&loop fastening tape sewn across the webbing. That simply would not go through the buckles. However, eventually I found out that the hook&loop tape is double-sided and could be unstuck from the webbing. A bit confusing at first! Why was the hook&loop tape there anyhow? It lets you roll the excess webbing at the end of the straps up into a little ball and secure it. Um… frankly, why bother? Anyhow, if you do unthread the lid from the load-lifter straps you can raise the lid a bit – but it perches rather precariously on top, and I don’t think this is a good arrangement. It’s a nice looking pack, except that the lid design is not so hot when you want to fill the bag right up. Less than full – fine.

We tested a Short version. I found it too short for me, and Sue found it “not very long.” I think the Regular version might have suited both of us better. This meant both of us found the ‘carry’ less than optimal: it was hard to get the pack onto the hip belt. However, in this case I think that this was due to the short torso length. It would suit a really petite woman, or better still a young girl. The colour scheme should appeal to either. Most people might find the Medium a better fit.

Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Nimbus Ozone	Above average	Adjustable torso length

You would have to say this is a bit like a big brother to the Vapor Flash Ki – but without a lid. The back padding is similar, and so is the hip belt, except for a slightly different curvature. The difference will be due to the former being a Women’s pack while this is not – the website says “Women’s belts are sculpted to fit the increased angle of women’s hips.” You have to burrow under the bottom of the pack to undo the hook&loop flap covering the big screw which anchors the hip belt. Yes, this one uses engineering stuff!

The torso length is adjustable over a range of 100 mm (4 in), with the aid of a screwdriver. The straps are bolted to a plastic back panel. The mechanism for adjusting is a bit complex, but you shouldn’t have to adjust it more than once or twice. In addition, while you are adjusting the torso length, you can also exchange the shoulder straps themselves. When you make an adjustment you have to move a horizontal padded reinforcing bar which sits behind the plastic back panel. How you could lose this bar I don’t know, but the company sells spares! Having an adjustable torso length gets brownie points, but whether the different shoulder straps are really required is something I don’t know. I guess they wouldn’t sell them if they didn’t find them useful or popular.

With all the straps and screws involved in adjusting this pack, you are going to need an Owner’s Manual to work out how to drive it all. In this case the pack does come with a twenty-page Owners Manual, with good explanations and pictures. OK, some of the pages are about other packs in the range, but there are a solid twelve pages of technical stuff here for this pack!

The back is reinforced with a pretty solid plastic panel. If you didn’t know better, you might think the top edge had metal reinforcing as well, but it’s just plastic. While the bag fabric is quite light, there is some weight and stiffness in this harness. It showed however in the carry: it felt light.

Without a lid, this pack has to rely on a roll-top. The length is generous. The light fabric used is reinforced with those two blue stripes down the back and a number of webbing compression straps which can actually go right around from back panel to back panel, in three sections. There are two ice axe loops at the bottom of the pack, and the upper side compression straps are held with side-release buckles: they can hold the shafts in place.

There are large side-pockets of stretch-mesh, and a compression strap across the middle of each one. They should hold medium sized things and tent poles well, but don’t put tiny things in them – there are little ‘drain’ holes at the bottom. The holes may be for letting water out. There’s a short bladder pocket inside which will have to do for a security pocket, and a key clip at the top of the frame. No hip belt pockets are fitted, although there’s webbing on the hip belt for attachment, and no stupid whistle on the sternum strap.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Osprey make a lot of packs: these are from their ‘Superlite Ventilated’ range. Sadly, we have to report that all the other models were just too heavy to be included in this survey. But these Exos packs are quite radical in their harness design. I will quote Osprey here first: “AirSpeedSuspension, which teams a 6061-T6 Aluminum frame with a 3D tensioned mesh backpanel and side crescent ventilation. The AirSpeed suspension works in tandem with the supportive and ventilated Bio-Stretch harness and hipbelt…”

What does this mean? Imagine a rim of white aluminium tubing (Easton tent pole type) twisted into a very fat inverted T shape, like distorting a large bicycle tyre. The vertical part of the T goes to the top of the harness, while the cross-bar at the bottom forms part of the hip-belt wings. Add a couple of thin reinforcing wires across the middle. Now stretch tough non-stretch nylon mesh over that frame. That’s what Osprey have done: you can see the taut mesh in the middle photos, with bits of the white tubing at the edges.

But what about the lumbar pad? Well, there isn’t one. Nothing there at all in fact. Very strange. The whole thing rides on the tension in the mesh across your back. Does it work? Indeed, it does, and the Exos design is quite popular. I suspect it might prove a little cool or even drafty in the snow, but in summer time it sure provides lots of ventilation.

The Exos range is another user of narrow webbing and matching buckles. The range also has some rather innovative shoulder straps. They seem to be nothing more than strips of perforated foam covered in a light mesh. Actually, I think most of the strength of the shoulder straps (and the hip belt) comes from the innocent-looking binding running down the edges. Anyhow, the shoulder straps work fine.

While the pack weights are fairly close to the mark, we have to point out that the measured volumes are significantly less than the claimed volumes. This is a pity.

Osprey Exos 46 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Exos 46	Recommended	A bit small, but very light

We let this pack sneak in when it was only 46 L, below our threshold of 50 L, but the measured volume is way below the claimed volume. Ah well. Doubtless for a fully-fledged UL walker in summer this might be adequate volume even so. However, I found it made an excellent pack for a serious day walk, shown in the right hand photo. It had plenty of room for all our gear, leaving my wife with nothing to carry. That was a novel experience for her! The pack rode quite well.

The back of the pack has fairly common open pocket on it, made of stretch fabric and held up by a buckle. That much is obvious. What is less obvious is that there is a vertical pocket behind the open one, with a vertical zip. You can just see the pull on the slider next to the buckle on the lid in the left hand photo. That is all very well, but try getting something into this pocket when the main bag is full. It is rather unlikely. Perhaps you could slip a small poncho in there, but it had better be dry as there are no drain holes.

The lid pocket has a key clip inside it and there is a zipped mesh security pocket under the lid. I suggest that anything you store in the mesh pocket should be in a waterproof bag. The lid pocket itself has reasonable capacity for a lid pocket.

Osprey Exos 58 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Exos 58	Recommended	Fair volume, carries well

Having already described the Exos 46, there is little new left to say about the Exos 58. It is bigger of course, and it has two concealed back pockets with vertical zips rather than the one on the Exos 46. Curiously, while the left and right pockets are separate, there is a mouse hole between them right at the bottom. Very odd. You can’t get much in either one when the main bag is full. The novel shoulder straps were described above. It was noticeable that they were quite comfortable. The hip belt was quite comfortable too. There are zipped mesh pockets on the hip belt, but I found them of little use myself.

The lack of a lumbar pad did not worry me, but Sue was able to feel the aluminium frame tube running across the bottom of the harness on this Exos 58 pack, but less so on the Exos 46. Somewhat curiously, this bottom tube was well curved on the Exos 46 but less so on the Exos 58. Why this is so I do not know. On the other hand, the slightly greater curvature on the Exos 46 meant that the tube in the wings was closer to the sides of Sue’s hips, and was slightly intrusive there – but not badly. Perhaps one could fine-tune the curvature in the tubular frame, but I am not sure how much of that the high-tensile aluminium tubing would take. Perhaps this is a design more suited to men than to women?

The photo on the right shows the Exos 58 in the Australia Alps, on a nine-day trip in autumn. No, I did not get food for the full nine days in there: we had a posted food drop half-way along. Cheating of course. With only half the food, the pack was still pretty full, but we were carrying some winter gear in all that. You can just see a trace of blue under the lid: that was my tent, sitting on top of the throat and under the lid. The single strap under the lid held it in place well enough. Why am I squinting like that? Because there was a howling gale blowing across the plains at the time!

I got most of the gear inside the main bag for this trip. I think I had my poncho in one of the zipped back pockets – that’s all. Our blue foam sit-mats went in the open back pocket, the same as you can see in the right hand photo of the Exos 46 above. That worked fine. Over all the pack rode well on this trip, and I was quite happy with it.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

JanSport are part of the VF Outdoor, Inc. This in turn would seem to be a subsidiary of VF Europe B.V.B.A. which has its head office in Belgium. This seems to be an acquired collection of outdoors companies which includes The North Face. Comparing JanSport with The North Face suggests that JanSport is very much more ‘consumer-oriented’ than The North Face.

Testing the JanSport pack did not go smoothly at first. We were sent an early prototype unit somehow (lying around the warehouse?), and found that the webbing slipped through the buckles at a truly alarming rate when under load. Also the measured volume was far below the claimed volume. We reported this to the company with some concern, and the company was very apologetic and replaced the pack quickly. Unfortunately the replacement was another early prototype with the same problems! Eventually we were able to contact the ‘right’ manager in the company to discuss this. The conversation was interesting at first, as he was looking at much later versions of the design than we had in front of us. Eventually we managed to sort all this out, and he sent us a ‘latest’ version. Yes, it had many significant differences and was much improved! The weight had gone up above the initial claim, the measured volume now matched the claimed value, and the buckles worked properly. I think the manager then went off the clean out all the failed prototypes from the warehouse to prevent future problems.

This problem is why the left hand photo (below) is not the one on the JanSport website. That photo (at the time of writing) illustrated the first pack we were sent: quite different from the final version which is shown here. In due course I imagine they will update their website.

JanSport Big Bear 63 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Big Bear 63	Average	Rugged and low cost

The main bag easily held all of the Test Gear and could hold more – a far cry from the first version which only held about 47 L. Some of the extra volume is due to a distinct widening at the base, where ‘Sleeping Bag’ is written on the zip cover at the left hand side. I found that it paid to tighten up the side compression straps after I had packed the main bag, and this was best done with the pack lying down. The tighter packing this gave seemed to improve the ‘carry’ a bit.

While the lid pocket is not that large – maybe 2 – 3 L when the pack is full, the back pocket manages to have a serious volume of about 4 L even when the main bag is full, and is included in the measured volume. Using the back pocket for something heavy would be a very bad idea of course, but you could put light things in there. There’s a small mesh pocket outside the back pocket at the top with a zip closure: what you are meant to store here I have no idea. There’s also a zig-zag of bungee cord across the back. The side pockets are very tough mesh but only of medium height. I wouldn’t store anything tall in them, unless it was tall enough to be restrained by one of the side compression straps. They would be fine for holding tent poles.

The fabric feels quite tough, seeming like a good packcloth – 600 denier polyester for the most part. The seams have tape sewn over them in the usual way. The mesh side pockets are very tough stuff. The padding on the back and shoulder straps is not thick but feels quite adequate. The lid is sewn on but the zip on the lid pocket does not have a cover flap. You’ll need a pack cover I think – but so do most packs. One negative is that the throat is only just long enough to close over the main bag, without any extension. However, the lid does cover that very well. The other negative is that there is no compression strap under the lid. If you want to tie a (wet) tent or something under the lid, no luck. On the other hand, the lid design is good and it should retain a tent stored under it anyhow. Perhaps tie a safety cord between the tent and the pack?

Where this packs really scores is in the harness design. It has a fully adjustable sliding harness of the old variety: two aluminium stays which carry the shoulder straps on sliders. The stays are just hidden by the load lifter straps in the middle photo. By unlatching the lumbar pad, you access an adjustment buckle, and with that you adjust the shoulder strap position by up to 80 mm (3+ in). This means you can adjust the torso length (shoulder strap anchor position) on this pack to match your needs. However, I doubt that a really tall person would find the torso length adequate: it seems designed for short to middle height people. This could include a lot of teenagers of course. (The original pack actually had a long torso length, which was better.) I will forgive a lot of minor deficiencies for this adjustability. Oh – and the sternum strap is long enough and does not include that stupid whistle.

That does not mean everything is immediately perfect however. The harness is adjustable and needs to be adjusted to suit the wearer. Doing so is not hard but may take a couple of cycles, and maybe a bit of understanding. What that means is that, despite the mass-market nature of the company, this is not a pack which should be left to a novice to adjust. That may not be a problem if you buy this pack in a good gear shop with a properly trained assistant who can properly do all the adjustments – and show you how to manage them all. So this pack, while more adjustable than most, seemed to also require a bit more careful adjustment than most.

The hip belt feels stiff, but I suspect this is deliberate to make it ride on your hips properly. It does this quite well. There are no hip belt pockets, which is fine. The lumbar pad can be folded away from the pack, but that is only to allow access to the torso-length adjustment. The hip belt is fixed – sewn in place. That’s fine.

It’s not a fancy pack, but it is not expensive either, and it is tough. An obvious target market would be novice young walkers just getting into the game.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Lowe Alpine was started by some American climbers: Jeff, Mike, and Greg Lowe in 1967, but it has since been bought by the Italian boot company Asolo and migrated to Nervesa della Battaglia, Treviso in Italy. Production has (as might be expected) migrated to China. The packs tested come from their Hyperlite range: in this case Hyperlite means Dyneema. That’s a very tough fabric. Interestingly, the instructions which come with the packs do explain the different styles of packing: mass high for endurance when walking but mass low for stability when climbing.

A brief note about Men’s and Women’s packs. Lowe Alpine make both in many models. If the model name has ND in it, it is a Women’s model; otherwise it is a Men’s model.

Lowe Alpine Nanon 50:60 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Nanon 50:60	Average	Fairly classical

This is a Men’s pack from the Hyperlite series (there is a Women’s version). The bag has a back pocket on a curious almost-floating (well, very expandable) back panel. Gear can go inside the back pocket and between the main bag and the back panel: two layers of storage. Gear won’t fall out of the latter space as there is some semi-stretch fabric up the sides. A somewhat strange arrangement, although a small wet tent or tarp could fit there: they have put a drain hole at the bottom. Sit mats do also fit nicely. However, I doubt you could get much into both pockets at once.

The side pockets are tall with elastic at the top edge, although the elastic does not do very much. There is one waterproof zip down the side allowing access into the bottom of the main bag. This is covered by a compression strap – fortunately. There were plenty of webbing loops scattered across the pack body as well, and two ice axe attachments.

While most pack manufacturers have gone with 20 mm webbing, Lowe Alpine is one of the few who have chosen to use narrower webbing, with special narrow buckles to match. Given the solid thickness of the webbing, I don’t think there are any strength concerns at all for the it, although the narrowness could place a little more load on the sewing at the anchor points. However, they have added reinforcing patches where needed, so that worry does not apply. Is there any difference in weight between this narrow but thicker webbing and a wider, light webbing made of grosgrain tape? I doubt it. I have used grosgrain tape on my packs for years with no problems. I guess it is a ‘distinction’ for marketing. But they work OK.

The throat is of a reasonable length. The lid is floating but does cover the throat adequately, provide you adjust it correctly (easy enough). It has nice elastic sides which are quite adaptable. The pocket on the lid has a fair bit of volume, a key clip inside and a security pocket under it. The base of the pack is unfortunately tilted, so that the pack cannot sit upright.

The internal frame is a non-removable sheet of hard plastic and a U-shaped bit of high-tensile steel wire to give the curved back. This wire appears to be removable, but only with some difficulty. Altering the curvature can be done with the wire in place. As delivered, and visible in the right hand photo, the top of the stiffening wires seemed a little too straight. A bit more curvature forwards at the top might be useful – and possible.

The hip belt is attached only at the bottom edge: the top edge is held by webbing. This allows a variable curvature to the hip belt, but that curvature can’t be locked. Adjusting the tightness of the hip belt via the front buckle will alter the tilt of the hip belt as well – you have to study the design to see how it works. The hip belt worked fine but the performance did not seem much different from most other packs. Sue found the height of the hip belt a bit large: the top edge came close to her ribs. Note however that this is a Men’s medium size: there is a different hip belt for the Women’s version of this pack (Nanon ND50:60).

The lumbar pad can actually be pulled out at the top, giving access to a strap and buckle which adjusts the length of the shoulder straps. Lowe Alpine claim this adjusts the back length, but I have to disagree. It does not allow you to adjust the real length of the torso on the pack: the shoulder straps still come out of the same place just above the padding. There is a tough mesh panel as back padding which has a second layer of stiff plastic inside it. Actually, this mesh layer is a double layer, with tiny plastic ‘springs’ in between the two layers. A bit like an inner-spring mattress. Trying to focus on the mesh can be tricky: my eyes got very confused! Whether this actually contributes anything is not clear: we didn’t notice any real difference. Yes, all these features do make the pack fairly heavy.

Lowe Alpine Zepton ND50 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Zepton ND50	Recommended	Very light, women’s fit

Gotta love the colour – crushed blackberries. This pack looks moderately similar to the Nanon 50:60, at least on the surface, so we will only cover the differences. And there are quite a few differences, all in the direction of a simpler and lighter design. As mentioned, the ND in the model name means it is designed for women (there is also a Men’s version). The side pockets are shorter and the shoulder straps are narrower. One assumes the latter is an ND feature and is to avoid damage to female breasts. There is no back pocket and there is no zip down one side – a nice clean design. The throat is very short – too short I think, but the lid does cover it.

The lumbar pad is fixed in place and so are the shoulder straps. There is no side zip access into the bottom of the pack – it won’t be missed. The double layer of inner-spring mesh on the harness is still there however. The back of the pack and the lumbar pad are noticeably more curved (for a female fit). Sue found it suited her quite well, while it was too curved for me. That figures: this is a Women’s model. Sue said she could just feel the bottom edge of the plastic sheet if she tried, but added that it did not worry her.

A major difference between the Zepton and the Nanon is that the throat on the Zepton is much shorter than on the Nanon, to the point of almost being non-existent. It is only 11 cm (4.3 in) long, on the Zepton it is 25 cm (10 in) long. I find the idea of making the throat this short rather strange. I am led to believe this was done to prevent people from overloading the pack. Yes, the lid can cover the throat adequately, but I would prefer it longer all the same.

The sternum strap uses a rather novel mechanism for the attachment to the shoulder strap. A fitting copied from yachting is used: a sort of sliding C-clip holding onto a bit of solid cord inside a fold of fabric. It seems to work fine, and is smaller than some other fittings I have seen.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

ULA was founded by Brian Frankle in 2001, after he ‘discovered’ UL gear (the story of the whole cottage industry?). In the early days all the pack-making was done by Brian as well – in his garage (of course). After a while he got some help, to reduce the well-known delays in delivery. Late in 2009 Brian sold the company to Chris McMaster, another UL enthusiast.

The packs featured here are quite distinctive, with a frame design somewhat different from most. There are two upright rods or tubes running down the very outer corners, and a cross bar at the top made from flexible Delrin plastic. The design ends up a bit squarer than most because of the frame tubes. However, there is only a thin layer of firm foam down the harness face, not hard plastic. A consequence of this soft back is that you can make the middle of the harness face bulge outwards in a most uncomfortable manner if you stuff (fill) the bag too hard. You need to keep the packing a bit soft on all these packs so the bag can adapt to your back. Overloading (jamming stuff in tightly) is not advised.

All three of the packs have a very tapered or tilted bottom, so that none of them are able to sit upright on the ground. We found this a bit irritating (OK, very irritating) when they fell over every time. The taper also made impossible to put a quilt or sleeping bag at the bottom of the pack if it had been put into a stuff sack. Doing so left a large empty gap under the round stuff sack, with a natural loss of even more volume.

ULA Circuit Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Circuit	Average	Light, but care needed in packing

This is a roll-top pack. You don’t have to roll the throat down: you can just fold it over once and hold it in place with the side straps and the over-the-top strap. It just isn’t very weather-resistant that way. A consequence of the roll-top design is that it is very hard to define the ‘real’ volume. I am a bit conservative and insisted on being able to do a dry-bag seal with the top, but this resulted in a measured volume of only 48 L (2,900 cuin): far below the claimed 69 L (4,200 cuin). However, things are not that simple, as ULA measures each compartment separately, and then adds them all up. The figures given on the web site are thus:
Main bag: 39 L (2,400 cuin);
External collar: 8 L (500 cuin) (total main bag: 47 L or 2,900 cuin);
Back pocket: 6.5 L (400 cuin);
Side pockets: 5.7 L (350 cuin) each;
Hip belt pockets: 1.6 L (100 cuin) each;
Total: 69 L (4,200 cuin).

You can see that our measured volume of 48 L for the main bag is actually very close to the claimed volume for the main bag. However, the ASTM Standard does not permit you to claim the open mesh pockets when measuring pack volume – per the Standard, anyhow. So while our measurements do match the details of the ULA measurements, we disagree as to what you can claim for the pack as a whole. If we are to treat the ULA packs the same as all the other packs, than we have to ignore their claimed Total Volume.

The Circuit was delivered with a Medium hip belt. At first I found that the bottom edge of the hip belt dug into the tops of my thighs while I was walking. It is 125 mm wide – about the widest hip belt tested; many other brands of hip belts are about 100 mm wide. I was able to handle the problem to some degree. The hip belt is held in place with a large area of hook&loop fastening on front and back, and it can be moved up and down. It was delivered at maximum torso length (too long for either of us), so I moved the hip belt up, with the aid of several sheets of stiff card slid between the faces of the hook&loop fastening (without this trick I found it almost impossible to adjust the hip belt). This adjustment helped a bit, but moving the hip belt up meant the top edge was digging into my lower ribs. I swapped the Medium out for a Small hip belt, which was 115 mm across. Better, but still a problem. So I turned the Small hip belt upside down, and that worked OK – except that the hip belt pockets were now upside down. Maybe the design is just meant for people with a taller waist than me, but that is something to check carefully.

I didn’t use the large mesh pocket on the back for gear, but I did find it collected scrub very easily. I had to empty it out when I got home before I could bring the pack inside. That wouldn’t happen much if you stayed on trails all the time.

The roll top made it difficult to decide where to put a wet tent. If all you have is a one-man tarp, this may not be a problem: you can stick it in the mesh back pocket. However, my two-man tunnel tent was too big (and too heavy) for that. I think this is a case of a pack really tuned for one sort of gear only.

I found that the stiff shoulder straps tended to dig into my ribs a bit. This may be associated with my problems with the hip belt or my general body shape – I don’t know. The bottom ends of the shoulder straps go to the outer corners of the frame. Combine this with the tendency of the middle of the back to bulge outwards, and the result was that we found that this pack carried a bit ‘heavier’ than many others. It can hold weight, but it seems the design is really meant for very light loads.

ULA Catalyst Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Catalyst	Above average	Light, but care needed in packing

The Catalyst is the big one of the ULA series, but once again the volume is not that great if you follow the ASTM Standard. The breakdown for the various compartments is as follows according to ULA (we did not measure these separately):
Main Body: 43 L (2,600 cuin);
External Collar: 10 L (600 cuin) (total main bag: 52 L or 3,200 cuin);
Front Mesh Pocket: 10 L (600 cuin);
Side Mesh Pocket: 5.7 L (350 cuin) each;
Hipbelt Pockets: 1.6 L (100 cuin) each
Total: 75 L (4,600 cuin).
It would seem that my packing of the main bag (or the number of rolls in the closure of the throat) is a bit more conservative that ULA’s, but I have a fixation on keeping my gear dry.

The hip belt on the Catalyst is also exchangeable, and available in XS, S, M, L, XL.

All the comments about the Circuit apply to the Catalyst as well. Basically, it seems the Catalyst is simply a larger Circuit. We had hoped that this pack would be at the top end of the volume range, but obviously this did not happen.

At least this is one of the few packs which has large side pockets which remain usable even when the main bag is really full. You would have to use these pockets to get enough volume for a long trip in poorer weather (when you need a bit more gear). Using the side pockets would mean minimising the distance from your back to the centre of gravity, which is a Good Thing of course. Water bottles, suitably anchored, come to mind for the side pockets.

ULA Camino Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Camino	Average	Suits hostellers

This is a panel loader pack, not a top loader. One might well ask what a panel loader pack is doing in a serious review of real walkers’ packs, when they are normally reserved for… well, not ‘real walkers.’ Basically, the reason is that the Camino was very new (not on the website at the time of writing), and Brian Frankle thought it carried well. OK, if you are zipping around some European trail staying in gites and mountain refuges, a panel loader might actually be quite convenient. Hey, with some of those high refuges there is barely enough room for your bed, let alone space to put a pack on the floor! So, we included it.

I have to report that the bottom end of the Camino is as tapered as the other two ULA packs, and yes, it falls over just as easily. We found that annoying. The volume of the main bag is not large, even when I jiggled the packing to fill every nook and cranny. I ended up having to put the two water bottles in the side pockets and the orange stuff sack in the mesh back pocket, in order to get all the Test Gear in. This worked, but was stretching the capacity a bit. Of course, if you are going to be going from hut to hut in Europe, you might not need to carry as much food and gear anyhow. Many walkers over there seem to just carry a towel (being a cool frood) and a toothbrush… and a credit card.

The design of a panel loader means it can be stuffed too full and made to bulge at the back very easily – perhaps even more easily then the Circuit and the Catalyst. However, if not stuffed too full, the fit can be quite comfortable. Part of the secret is to not do up the internal straps (shown in the left photo) very tightly. However, if you don’t use them at all there can be a bit of strain on the long zip when you are doing it up. A delicate balance is needed – and possible.

The hip belt is a little complex in its arrangement. I think you are meant to be able to adjust the tilt of the hip belt by adjusting the upper and lower webbing buckles on the hip belt, but on the pre-production model provided this was rather ineffective. It may be that this part of the design, or at least the way the main buckle is used, will be changed before the pack is released.

The shoulder straps sported an interesting refinement. There are D-rings near the shoulders (as found on a number of packs). Attached to these D-rings were some fancy adjustable loops just meant for holding onto with your thumbs to support your arms. They are very adjustable in length – but they are extra weight. Some may like them despite that. Others might like the idea, but simplify it.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

GoLite is of course a very well-known brand by now, especially at the lighter end of the market. They started out with a focus on really lightweight gear, but as they grew in size, they expanded their scope towards the mass-market a bit. Fortunately the Quest and Odyssey packs are still very light and close to the leading edge. The Men’s Odyssey is easily the largest pack tested in this trial.

There is a cute little gotcha with the GoLite packs. The bottoms of these packs can be cinched down with two small loops which the new owner may not see at first – and they seem to come already done up. So remember to undo these if you want the full volume! (Yes, I missed them at the start.) Or do them up if you want to reduce the volume near the end of a trip and all your food has been eaten. This is especially useful with the Odysseys.

The measured values for weight were very close to the published values, but the measured values for pack volume were consistently down near only 80% of the published values. It may be that they measured the volume of the large back pocket and the lid pocket when the main bag was empty – that would allow a lot more volume, although it would not be realistic in the field.

The fabric used in all these packs was interesting. It has the handle of a knitted fabric, but it is woven. One could perhaps describe it as a sort of 210 denier Oxford. According to GoLite, the fabrics used recycled nylon. Anyhow, there is a very solid coating on the inside surface, and the fabric does seem to slide across sticks and rocks quite well.

The target market for these packs seem to be the middle of the range. The packs are not exactly cheap and not as rugged as some others – although they are not down at the silnylon-strength by any means. I think they could cope with quite a wide range of uses by quite a wide range of walkers. The Odyssey might find a special use in winter travel, when you have to carry a bit more clothing and sleeping gear. It should cope with the extra volume just fine.

GoLite Quest Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Quest (M)	Above average	Tough and light
Quest (W)	Above average	Tough and light

The Quest is one of the lighter GoLite frame packs, and quite close to the leading edge of the cottage industry in terms of volume per weight – but it isn’t all that ‘light’ in absolute terms. However, the extra weight has been put to good use in stronger fabrics and solid back padding, as shown here. The internal frame consists of a thin but very stiff sheet of plastic reinforced by two flat strips of aluminium. The strips come pre-curved, but the curve can easily be modified to suit. What was interesting was that the Men’s and Women’s models, as delivered, felt very different from each other. The bottom end of the Women’s frame (in the lumbar region) was definitely more curved than the Men’s. I found the Men’s comfortable but the Women’s less so; Sue found the reverse (as might be expected). The width of the padding meant that we both got sweaty backs – but the weather was hot at the time.

When the main bag is full, it tends to bulge into the otherwise large-looking back pocket. I was able to get sitmats and the like in there fairly easily, but nothing particularly lumpy. If the main bag volume is too much, you can cinch the bottom of the bag down: there are those two little straps underneath which seriously restrict the volume of the bottom section. As mentioned above, the claimed volumes for both Quests seemed a bit high compared to many other packs: I had trouble getting all the Test Gear into the main bag on the 62 L Women’s model, but that was measured at just 53 L. Exactly why the discrepancy I do not know – unless they measured the volume of the back pocket and the lid pocket with the main bag empty.

The design features a conventional floating lid of adequate size. The back lid straps are anchored half-way down the body, which seems adequate for a range of packings. The lid pocket has the same bulge problem restricting its volume, but it works OK.

The hip belt wings are rather solid things and have pockets, but once the hip belt was curved around my hips there wasn’t much room in the pockets. The tips of the shoulder straps on the Men’s model were a bit lumpy on me at the start of testing: a small fault. Sue did not notice this problem however, so it may depend on exactly where the tips are on your body. The sternum straps (with that silly whistle) only just reached across me, but they were OK on Sue. The wings of the hip belt are sewn to the main bag, and do not always contact your hips at the corners where they are attached. However, that does not seem to matter.

I know they have separate Men’s and Women’s models, but apart from the different colour of the trim, the way the aluminium struts are pre-bent, and the obvious different meanings of ‘Medium,’ I could not see a huge difference between them. I would suggest the prime criterion during selection should be getting the right torso length for you regardless of ‘pack gender.’

GoLite Odyssey Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Odyssey (M)	Recommended	For those who need VOLUME
Odyssey (W)	Recommended	For those who need VOLUME

The first thing to note about these packs is that they are big on volume (albeit less than claimed). In fact it was a bit of a gamble that this might be so which allowed us to included them in the survey. Both units tested are ‘Medium,’ but continuing in the established tradition, the Women’s Medium is smaller than the Men’s Medium, though they are still fairly large. Fortunately, like the Quest packs, these have those two nifty little cinch straps underneath the main bag for reducing its volume. In the photo to the right of the Men’s pack in the field, I have the bottom of the pack in its normal or expanded configuration, but that was at the start of the trip with lots of food. In the photo at the top we were on our way back (food mostly eaten), and I had cinched up the bottom of the pack to reduce its volume and get the weight higher on my back.

For some of the models in this review Sue and I found we could carry the same pack despite a difference in our respective torso lengths of about 3.5 cm (1.5 in). However, in this case Sue found the Men’s medium was just a bit too long for her, but the Women’s Medium was fine. Our torso difference matches the difference in torso lengths on these packs.

It would be fair to say that the Odyssey is close to being an enlarged Quest. Sure, the back pocket is different, and the Odyssey has a zip at the bottom, around a significant bulge there to give you access into the bottom of the bag, but otherwise – they are quite similar. This is perfectly reasonable.

I have to say that the zip access into the bottom of the main bag strikes me as pretty useless however. If I pack the main bag from the top first there is no way I can get more than a few handkerchiefs into the bottom afterwards. Yes, if I unzip the bottom of the bag when I set up camp I can get at the stuff at the bottom first – but that’s not of great value to me. In bad weather, I leave the stuff I’ve stored at the bottom of my pack safely down there until I get my pack into the tent.

I am normally in the habit of tying the tent on top of the sealed throat and holding it in place with a strap over the throat. Of course, the lid over the top does help restrain the tent as well. In this case I was not really confident that the single strap provided would be reliable enough, although that may be because the main bag was never really full. In the event I did carry the tent like that, and it stayed in place. The lid helped.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

To quote the REI website,”What began as a group of twenty-three mountain climbing buddies is now the nation’s largest consumer cooperative with more than three million active members.” That means that REI is a rare successful not-for-profit company: the profits made during the year are returned to the Members at the end of the year as in-store credits. In addition, REI has this apparently mad policy of allowing a no-questions return of any gear bought from them – cases of gear being returned years after purchase (and use) have been cited. You would think this would be commercial suicide, but that has not happened yet. Apparently the commercial advantages of giving potential customers that assurance outweighs the small number of cases where it gets exploited.

REI is obviously not a cottage industry by any means. Gear sold under the REI brand is not ‘flash,’ but they are usually solid functional items. It may be a case like that of the modern Toyota Corolla and an old Rolls Royce: the Corolla is reputed to have a higher quality. Why so? When you sell hundreds of thousands of something you get very good at eliminating the bugs. However, like several other American manufacturers, they were not that good at estimating pack volumes – at least, not according to the ASTM Standard.

REI Flash 65 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Flash 65	Average	Low cost, but not large

This pack was taken on a multi-day tour through some of the wilder parts of Wollemi National Park in Australia. It is a land of huge sandstone cliffs, dense basalt jungle, and some rather nasty (sharp and pointy) scrub. A pack needs to be fairly tough to survive in this country. In addition to carrying food for four days, I was carrying winter clothing, 4 L of water at times, and 40 m of light abseil rope (regardless, we didn’t use the rope: 40 metres was too short for the cliffs).

I had no trouble fitting everything in the pack, provided I packed carefully. Only our flat foam sit-mats and the flat stove base went in the back pocket – it was convenient for that. A few bits went in the lid pocket. My camera was clipped to the shoulder strap. Otherwise everything else was inside. When I put the pack on at home, and also just out of the car at the start, I did notice that the padding down the back was very firm, almost hard. However, after about ten minutes walking up the hill, the padding and my back had become acquainted and got on well together for the rest of the trip, with no problems. It was noticeable that the pack did not carry ‘heavy.’ Sue found the lumbar pad on this pack to be ‘male-oriented,’ and it needed a bit more curvature for her, but this is normal.

As mentioned above, there is no way you could call REI a cottage industry company. This shows in several ways. First, there is some economy of features in the design, but I prefer to call that an absence of marketing frills (except for a stupid orange whistle buckle in the sternum strap). Since a mistake in the design could trigger a rather expensive recall, given the volume of sales at REI, there was obviously some incentive for the designers to get it right. I have to say they seem to have done that. Everything worked quite well.

Technically, the internal frame consists of a stiff plastic sheet and two aluminium stays. You can get the aluminium stays out to alter the bends if you want. The two rectangles of padding contain highly perforated foam covered by soft nylon mesh. The shoulder straps and hip belt are also mesh over foam. The straps are all long enough and the buckles worked very reliably. The waterproof zips on the lid and the back pocket are a bit stiff to open, but that applies to all WP zips. The fabric is light, but apart from getting a trifle dirty in the scrub, it survived the trip without any visible effects. And the base of the bag is fairly square, so the pack sits upright.

There is a small security pocket attached to the strap under the lid with a hook&loop closure. I was not entirely convinced about the idea, but it worked just fine. I could have used the much larger security pocket on the underside of the lid – it is also closed with hook&loop tape, but for what I wanted (credit card, drivers licence, keys) the latter seemed too big.

There are compression straps under the base of the pack. You could use them for carrying a rolled-up foam mat of course, or you could reduce the volume of the bottom half of the main bag. Both work. There are lots of other little attachment points on the bag, but I haven’t needed any of them.

REI was not happy with the volumes we measured for either of the Flash packs. Their measurements gave quite different results, as the table shows. However, since so many other manufacturers’ claims came out within a few percent of our measurements, we are confident of our methodology and that we comply reasonably well with the ASTM Standard. During the email discussion which ensued, we were told that REI had measured the capacity of the lid pocket to be 9 L: we had measured it as 4 L. REI had measured the back pocket as having a capacity of 6 L: we had found it was very difficult to get anything much into it without pushing back into the main bag. In fact, in the field all I was able to get into the back pocket was two small sit-mats, and that took a bit of pushing. The only way we could get the volumes quoted by REI into those two pockets would be to fill them up while the main bag was empty, but this is not how a walker uses a pack. We do not have an answer here.

REI Flash 50 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Flash 50	Average	Low cost, but not large

You could call this the smaller brother to the Flash 65. I did manage to get all the test gear inside the bag, but I had to float the lid up a bit to get it to cover the tent. The strap under the lid, which I used to hold the tent in place, is combined with the strap which holds the back pocket. I was not really enthused about this design: I would prefer they added an extra buckle.

Once again, the harness or back padding was really solid. Sue found this fitted her OK and was quite comfortable with it. As might be expected, it too carried fairly ‘light.’ The upper part of the main bag is noticeably straight up rather than tilted towards the wearer’s head. A bit of a tilt at the top could be created by bending the aluminium strips, but note that the bag design is straight. You could not put much bend in without distorting the bag.

This pack seemed a bit better shaped for a woman, with just a bit more curvature at the lumber region. Whether this would be found with every unit I do not know, but you can always adjust the curvature to suit anyhow. That’s the great thing about the use of aluminium stays down the frame: they can be shaped to suit the wearer.

The shoulder straps had a lot of extra length to them. I have yet to understand why pack makers seem to have so much trouble getting shoulder straps and sternum straps the right length – a bit of extra length but not too much. However, that is a minor point.

A curious thing found on both Flash packs is what looks like double side pockets. As you can see from the photo, there seems to be a tall flat side pocket with a shorter bulging side pocket over it. Actually, the short bulging side pocket is real, but the tall flat ‘pocket’ is actually the mesh sides to the back pocket. Yes, you could use them as ‘pockets’, but I doubt you could get much in them. The same applies to the zipped pocket on the outside of the back pocket: it is a bit flat and of limited value. It is strange that REI have these two ‘features’ on the Flash when removing them could lower the cost. The back pocket itself does not have a lot of space either, but it was useful for carrying our flat sit-mats.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

MontBell is a Japanese company with a subsidiary in America, and websites for each. At the time this review was being prepared they were having some problems with hackers on both websites, so it was hard to get all the data. Apart from that, the company has a fairly good reputation for being somewhat innovative in their designs, and these Versalite packs reflect that. The harness design on both packs is good and quite robust and comfortable, while the fabrics used on the rest of the pack are very light – silnylon even! The seams are double sewn for strength – a single line of stitching would simply not be enough with silnylon, of course. There seems overall to be a fine attention to detail. I don’t think I would want to take one of these packs through heavy Australian scrub for fear of damage – although my silnylon poncho manages to cope in the wet. The base of the pack looks like 210 denier packcloth or maybe a little lighter, while the sides seem to be 70 denier nylon. The two packs share the same harness system: they call it a ‘Super Wishbone’ design.

When we started this survey both packs were listed on their website. After the hacker attack, I could only find the Short version listed, but it seems unlikely that they would have discontinued the ‘normal’ length one, so we have included both here.

MontBell Versalite 50 Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Versalite 50	Recommended	Very comfortable harness

The photo on the left is one I took myself as I could not find a photo of the ‘standard’ one on the MontBell website after the hacker attack. I will add however that the two packs look identical, except for the colour.

The weight of this pack is medium, but the fabric is light silnylon in places. So where is all the weight? It seems to be in the Superwishbone harness and shoulder straps. Indeed, both of us found it to be very comfortable to carry, with Sue declaring it to be a keeper. The design is simple: a main bag with short side-pockets, and a zigzag lacing across the back. The throat is silnylon of adequate length – in fact all the red bits are silnylon. That said, all the attachment points are well reinforced, and main seams have been double-sewn for strength. The lid has a small but adequate pocket on it, with a zipped security pocket inside. Unfortunately the lid is not large: you don’t want to over-fill this pack. It covers the throat very well, but you shouldn’t try to fit a large tent under it. That seems curiously… Japanese. The fact that the measured weight and volume matched the claimed values goes along with that impression (precise).

The frame is sheet plastic with a single aluminium rod down the middle. The curvature can be altered in the field. Both the shoulder straps and the hip belt are quite well padded, even solid. The load lifter straps have thumb loops at the end – and they work. I found it very easy to carry.

The left photo shows the pack somewhat overloaded, with a bit more than the Test Gear load in it. It actually managed to contain all my gear for an extended trip in the Australian Alps. It could have carried this load (just), but I didn’t subject it to that (I took another). The right hand photo shows the pack in the rain without a cover: there was just a little bit of leakage near the bottom. Some of the stuff sacks were just slightly damp on the outside. Yes, the rain got on the camera lens as well: a ‘special’ effect for wet weather. You would need to use a rain cover on this pack in bad weather, like on most of the packs surveyed (the UK ones excepted).

MontBell Versalite 50 Short Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Versalite 50S	Recommended	Very comfortable harness

Really, there seems to be very little difference between this pack and the previous one. There is a difference in the measured volumes, but it might be that with a bit of jiggling I could have got this one up to 50 L as well. Mind you, the right hand photo suggests that the pack was well-filled with the Test Gear! One big difference I found was in the length of the torso: at a bit under 500 mm (20 in) this one is about 50 mm (2 in) shorter than the previous one – as the model names suggest. An exact measurement is not really meaningful as there is no top edge to the ‘torso’ or frame. Another difference may be found in the exact shape of the hip belt wings: the Short is a bit more rounded at the tips. A very minor difference, which is absolutely Japanese precision, is in the colour of the bar tacks on the shoulder straps. On the standard model the bar tacks are red, matching the red silnylon. On this Short version the bar tacks are pale grey, matching the pale grey silnylon. Mind you, the packs are sewn in Vietnam, not Japan.

What we did notice was that the pale grey silnylon was almost transparent. As you can see in the right hand photo, the colour of the stuff sacks inside the pack is quite clear. Actually, the same almost applies to the red silnylon, but the red colour does block a lot of transparency. Does this matter? Probably not.

In addition to having a good throat there is a webbing strap over the top of the throat to help keep it all together. Inside the main bag there are some little toggles and a loop of cord near the top edge: I am not sure what one is meant to do with them. I guess you could hang small stuff sacks off them, as a sort of security pocket. The zigzag lacing is 3-mm nylon cord, not bungee cord. Each of these packs has one conventional fitting for an ice axe, plus there are similar fittings above the side pockets. The latter may be designed to hold a bundle of tent poles.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

There are quite a lot of bushwalkers in Australia, the terrain and weather are a bit different from other countries, and Australia is a long way from all other major gear making countries (with the notable exception of New Zealand). What all this means is that Australia does have its own gear culture and quite a few local gear manufacturers. Basically, traditional Australian gear is made rugged, to cope with our bush and our weather. I can have a nice hot day with a hailstorm in the afternoon.

Unfortunately the Australian gear culture seems to be frozen in a time warp these days, with a strong focus on heavy canvas packs being a well-known example. The local shops are terrified of returns and simply won’t stock modern UL (or even lightweight) gear (the American idea of buying two with the intent of returning one would be regarded with horror and rejection here by the retailers). This makes it hard for local manufacturers to move into the lightweight space. However, one company – One Planet – has been cautiously testing the water, spurred on in part by the author nagging away at the company owner, who he has known for years.

In addition to making bushwalking gear, One Planet also makes gear for adventure organisations (eg schools), government departments (eg Post Office workers), and for the Australian and New Zealand Antarctic research organisations. The latter is rather impressive: the tents and outerwear have to withstand full-on Antarctic weather. But that gear is not UL!

One Planet Shadow Pack

Pack	Rating	Qualifications
Shadow UM	Above average	Very robust for scrub
Shadow W	Above average	Very robust for scrub

The Men’s and Women’s models are very similar, with the Women’s version being essentially a Small size. For this reason only one photo assembly is shown: you can’t tell the difference between them.

Despite my urgings, according to the manufacturer, the Shadow is pretty rugged: “constructed of 420 denier and 500 denier nylon with a 1000 denier base.” Actually, I am not sure that the fabric is pure nylon: it looks and feels more like a nylon/cotton blend to me, but I can be fooled. Well, given the nature of our scrub and the historical emphasis on 12-ounce canvas here, that is at least a step forward. More surprising is that the Shadow actually is not all that heavy, despite the fabric. Indeed, the volume/weight ratio is certainly not at the bottom of the table. This does place some emphasis on the fact that the weight of the fabric making up the main bag is not that large a fraction of the overall pack weight.

Where these packs score very well is in the fully-adjustable harness: the torso length can be finely controlled by buckle hidden behind the lumbar pad. I can attest that this adjustment does make a significant difference in comfort, at least to both myself and my wife. I tried the packs with the torso length too long and too short, and those settings were definitely not as comfortable as the correct torso length. The hip belt and the lumbar pad are definitely well-padded. Curiously, there is no slab of continuous foam padding all the way up the back: just a single aluminium rail which carries the (adjustable length) shoulder straps. The bit of the shoulder straps against the harness face is well padded. I expected that we would notice the lack of padding up our backs, but apart from the observation that it did feel different, I have to say the design works well and is comfortable.

The webbing on the hip belt is a solid 50 mm wide. I challenged this, but the owner replied that the wide webbing was an important part of the hip-belt design. Well, the extra weight of the wide webbing is very small. The adjustable parts of the shoulder straps are 25 mm and the compression straps are 20 mm. The shiny ‘buckles’ on the compression straps and the lid strap are not plastic: they are stamped aluminium adjustable hooks! Yes, that makes them heavier than the typical plastic side-release buckle, but they are indestructible. The extra weight incurred by the use of aluminium for the whole pack is only 25 grams. Hum… The sternum strap was fine and did not have a whistle.

The design of the Shadow pack is still evolving as some ‘American’ ideas get tested – not always successfully. A recent addition to the design of the pack is the provision of holders for PET 1.25 L water bottles at the bottom corners. One of these can be seen in the photos, with a PET water bottle in the right hand one. The bottle had the unfortunate habit of working its way up and out of this pocket, pushed by the hip belt side strap. It was doing this in the right hand photo. This was discussed with the owner of the company who could see the problem and undertook to fix it. Of course, if you are like me, you could just ignore the pocket and not use it. A more serious problem was the length of the throat: way too short. How this happened we are not sure, but the problem will be fixed according to the owner. The haulage loop was far too narrow (see the middle photo): this is being rectified in the design. There was no security pocket inside the lid pocket, but that too will be fixed. (Us reviewers do earn our keep…)

The main side pockets are very short: made to support the bottom end of a bundle of tent poles and nothing more. There is a little loop on the side at the bottom: this can be adapted to hold an ice axe by adding a short loop of cord. There are not many places in Australia where you need an ice axe after all. I thought the loop was too far forward and said so: it is now being moved a bit more towards the back face. Evolution!

The main bag held the Test Gear quite easily. The seams have been bound with tape in the conventional manner. There is a single strap under the lid, which can be used to hold a tent as well, and the design of the lid should add considerable security to that. While the main bag held only fifty-odd litres, they were very usable litres as the bag was wide enough.

Otherwise, the design is remarkably free of all the little marketing frills and add-ons and can survive considerable bashing through the bush with no visible damage.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

• Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
• Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
• Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
• Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.