Articles (2020)

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Introduction

This separate review provides additional descriptive and performance information on the Westcomb Chilko 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 new Westcomb Chilko Down Sweater is cutting-edge, as you would expect from Westcomb. The Chilko combines the best components and construction methods available to create a really warm and lightweight down sweater. How suitable is it for backpacking?

Description

New for fall 2010, the Westcomb Chilko Down Sweater is insulated with 850 fill power down and weighs just 11.8 ounces (335 g), measured weight for size Medium.

The Chilko’s shell and lining are the new 0.8 oz/yd² (27 g/m²) Pertex Quantum ripstop nylon with DWR, which is 20% lighter and has the same tear strength as the “old” Quantum. The insulation is 850 EU fill power (884 fill-power by the US measurement method) Canadian Hutterite down, which is claimed to be 100% down (less than 1% feathers). Down fill is 3.25 ounces (92 g), giving the jacket a measured single-layer loft of 0.9 inch (2.3 cm), which is on the high end for multi-purpose jackets.

Performance

The Chilko seems to have an average fit. With a heavy baselayer on, the Medium just fit me, with no room left for additional layering inside. The sleeves are long enough, but the jacket is snug and barely long enough. From this, I would say the sizing is normal and a size Large would fit me with adequate room inside for more layering.

The feature set on the Chilko is minimal, fairly lightweight, and very functional. There is a little extra weight in the hem drawcord; it could be made lighter with smaller elastic cord and cordlocks, or just eliminated. The front Ri Ri zipper is heavier than a #3 zipper, but it operates smoothly and will last a long time. Overall, the jacket is designed to be both lightweight and functional.

This jacket seals up well. The neck and wrists are snug and there is a drawcord on the hem to close the bottom of the jacket.

In the comparative warmth tests we performed for our state-of-the-market report on ultralight multi-purpose down jackets referenced below, the Chilko Down Sweater was among the warmest in the group.

Comparisons

Our article Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010 provides complete specifications and ratings for the Westcomb Chilko Down Sweater in comparison to a range of other lightweight down jackets. The jacket most similar is the Salomon Minim Down Sweater.

Assessment

The new Westcomb Chilko Down Sweater is indeed impressive. This is a jacket you admire once you get it, and others will admire it too. It has cutting-edge materials and construction, it’s well insulated, and the feature set is minimal, lightweight, and functional.

The closest comparison to the Chilko is the Salomon Minim Down Sweater. The shell on both jackets is the new 0.8-ounce Pertex Quantum, which is impressive. The Chilko weighs one ounce less and costs $10 more than the Minim. I would personally choose the Chilko because I like the design, fit, construction, and features a little better. The hand pockets are larger and fleece-lined, and zippers are welded on and easy to operate. The Salomon has a larger zippered chest pocket while the Westcomb has an inside stretch mesh pocket, which are about equivalent in usefulness.

Although both jackets mentioned are standouts in the group, they are both more expensive as well. For about the same money you can purchase a Western Mountaineering Flight Jacket which weighs about the same, or a Feathered Friends Hyperion Jacket which costs $50 less. Now, that’s a tough decision…

Specifications and Features

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

Introduction

The Sierra Designs LT Strike 2 uses a radical pole design to make a roomy two-person tent. The Strike is listed as the company’s lightest two-person tent and has the space to actually be usable for two to hang out in. I used it as a solo tent as well as with another sleeper in both three- and four-season conditions.

Design and Features

The Sierra Designs LT Strike 2 is a non-freestanding tent that is the newest addition to the company’s Ultralight Series of backpacking shelters. While they list it as being their lightest two-person tent, I found the actual weight to take it over their Vapor Light 2. As far as I can tell, my version is a retail unit, not a prototype, so maybe they just haven’t updated the website.

The most distinctive aspect of the Strike is the new Eye Pole design employed. It drew comments every time I set it up. When the two poles are connected by way of hubs, they make an ellipse with two legs. Those legs go into Jake’s Feet attachment points in two corners, leaving the ellipse above the tent. The opposite corners of the tent must be staked, and the 22.5-ounce (638-g) inner tent clips to the poles by means of eight Ultralight Clips. The result is a very spacious interior.

As may be seen in the pictures, the space is asymmetrical with high ends at opposite corners. This lets two people share the same head room without being forced to sit cheek-by-jowl. The fact that the two mesh gear storage pockets are also at opposite corners makes it obvious that SD expects the tent to be used to sleep two foot-to-head.

The 19.9-ounce (5640g) rain fly goes over the poles and attaches at the Jake’s Feet with a clipping hook. The other corners use good old Fastex clips. The two spacious vestibules are formed by pulling the fly away from the dual doors. Waterproof zippers sit in “parking garages” when zipped to the top to keep drips out. This is needed, as the top of the vestibule openings meet right at the top of the inner tent. The only way to get high/low air movement is by opening the top of the vestibule doors since there are no high vents in the fly.

Performance

I was able to use the LT Strike 2 in California in great three-season conditions as well as at the end of winter in Minnesota. My son (who lives in Minnesota and spends a week with me each month) wanted to try spending a night in a tent in the snow. His twin sister had no such desire (must have got mom’s smarts…), so I set up the Strike right outside the living room window where Emma could see us. I set up on top of about eight inches (20 cm) of melting snow pack. Soon after we turned in that night, it started hailing, later turning to rain, forcing me to button up the vestibule I had left open to see the window. There was a pretty good wind blowing, but once I shut the doors there was nothing much making it inside. We experienced some severe condensation.

In California the rains were finally over, and I was able to use the Strike in my favorite manner: that of inner mesh tent alone. I spent a night solo at Fisherman’s Camp in the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.

I was able to use it with another BackpackingLight member in the Sespe Wilderness. We stayed at Willet Camp at 2,600 feet (792 m) elevation where it got down to just above freezing. There was no wind on the night above the banks of Sespe Creek. I lost my camera (most likely during one of the twenty stream crossings we had), so have no pictures from this trip.

Assessment

I found the LT Strike 2 to be a pretty nice tent for two people. The pole design really works well to give a lot of interior room. In the Sespe Wilderness one of our group retired early, leaving the other two of us to sit up talking. The mosquitoes got pretty bad, so we decided to move the discussion inside the Strike. It had plenty of room for us both to sit up without crowding the other, and we were able to laugh at the frustrated whining horde on the other side of the mesh.

The actual 50-inch (127-cm) width of it let us sleep later without encroaching on the other’s space. In fact the Strike has room to use two large pads, should you need it. I would like to see Sierra Designs put a high vent or two on the fly. This would help a lot to move moisture out of the tent when the weather forces the vestibule doors to remain closed.

As a solo tent, this was a palace. With my little quilt inside, the Strike still looked empty. At Fisherman’s Creek I brought a book and some Scotch and read inside away from the numerous bugs, enjoying the afternoon in my spacious tent.

One thing that needs to be remembered is that this tent needs to be staked well. I have used rocks to hold stake points when above tree-line in the rocky Sierra Nevada, but the Strike’s design makes it hard to get the kind of support it needs in this fashion. Without the two pole-less corners secured well, any wind will cause the Eye Pole (and attached tent) to flip on its side.

While I used the Strike on snow, I would be hesitant to use it any time I expected snow to fall. The large flat area of the fly created by the Eye just begs to be overloaded by collecting snow, possibly leading to collapse. Heavy rain was not a problem at all though.

Dare to Compare

Trying to compare tents with like attributes, I would say that the Strike stacks up to the Big Agnes Copper Spur UL2 and the Big Sky International Evolution 2. The Strike has more livable space than either with its steep sides, but it weighs more too. Both other tents use high vents to help control condensation, and I know from personal experience that the Copper Spur will handle all but the worst snow storms. With it carbon fiber pole option, the Evolution wins in the weight category, although that comes with added expense.

What’s Good

• Light weight.
• Good floor space.
• Great interior volume.
• Large vestibules.

What’s Not So Good

• Vestibule doors don’t protect the inner if open at the top during inclement weather.
• Because of same, condensation is more of a problem than it could be.
• Flat area above Eye Pole will collect snow if surprised by a snow storm.

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 Montane Anti-Freeze Jacket. 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.

Although the Montane Anti-Freeze Jacket’s weight is slightly over our 14-ounce (397-g) weight limit for our state-of-the-market article, we decided to include it because we know garments from Montane are designed to be as lightweight and functional as possible. The Anti-Freeze falls into our Multi-Purpose Three-Season Down Jacket category, covered in Part 3 of the article cited above, because of its many features. How does it compare with other lightweight three-season jackets in our roundup, and how useful is it for backpacking?

Description

As we would expect from Montane, the Anti-Freeze is designed to be both lightweight and functional. The shell is 0.9 oz/yd² (31 g/m²) Freeflow Ultra Lite ripstop nylon with a DWR finish, and the lining is 0.88 oz/yd² (30 g/m²) PEAQ Down ultra soft nylon plain weave. The shell fabric has a waterproof rating of 800 millimeters and MVTR breathability of 4000 g/m²/24 hours.

Insulation is 5.1 ounces (145 g) of 800 fill power goose down, yielding a measured single-layer loft of 1.3 inches (3.2 cm). It has the highest loft in the group of multi-purpose down jackets we evaluated in Part 3 of the cited state-of-the-market article, but it’s not as lofty as several jackets in the group of seriously lightweight three-season down jackets we evaluated in Part 2 of the same article.

Performance

The jacket’s fit in size large is spot on for me (6 ft/1.83 m tall, 167 lb/76 kg, 39 in/99 cm chest, 34 in/86 cm sleeves). The sleeves are adequately long and the body has extra room to layer over an insulated vest or lightly insulated jacket. It’s roomy but not too roomy. As shown in the photos above, the jacket covers the butt very well.

With all its features, the Montane Anti-Freeze Jacket is definitely multi-purpose, and its warmth/protection is on the upper end of the group of jackets we classify as three-season – it has more down insulation than the other jackets in this category (multi-purpose three-season down jackets), plus it’s more sealable and weather-resistant – so we might call it a three-season+ down jacket. It does not have enough insulation to be considered a true four-season jacket, and it does not have any inside pockets (like drop pockets) for keeping items warm, as many four-season jackets do.

Several readers have expressed the opinion that an insulated jacket must be capable of sealing all of its openings to hold heat inside, which is especially needed for really cold conditions and for windy conditions. With three drawcords (neck, waist, and hem), the Montane Anti-Freeze jacket seals exceptionally well. Three drawcords in combination with its Freeflow Ultra Lite shell make this jacket exceptionally weather resistant.

I found the Anti-Freeze Jacket to be most appropriate and useful for more blustery weather and shoulder season conditions where the weather can be any combination of cold, wet, and windy. It’s excellent for igloo camping, where temperatures can drop down to about 20 F (-7 C) with high humidity. For active backcountry skiing and snowshoeing I found it to be too warm to wear on the go, but it was welcome on breaks and when it became windy. It was perfect on the Alaska Ferry where the temperature was 40 F with a 20 mph (32 kph) wind, and light drizzle, and it provided the extra insulation and weather resistance I needed when spring camping at 12,000 feet (3,658 m) among snowdrifts in the southern Rockies.

Comparisons

Our article Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010 provides complete specifications and ratings for the Montane Anti-Freeze Jacket in comparison to a range of other lightweight down jackets. The multi-purpose jackets most similar are the EMS Ascent Sector Down Sweater, The North Face Thunder Jacket, MontBell Permafrost Light Down Jacket, and Western Mountaineering Flash XR Jacket. It is also similar (but more featured) compared to the MontBell Alpine Light Down Jacket, Feathered Friends Hyperion Jacket, and Western Mountaineering Flight Jacket in our seriously lightweight group of down jackets.

Assessment

With 1.6 inches/4.1 cm of measured single-layer loft, the Anti Freeze is lofty, but not as lofty as the Brooks Range Alpini Mountain Anorak (1.6 inches/4.1 cm), Feathered Friends Hyperion Jacket (1.5 inches/3.8 cm), Nunatak Skaha Anorak (2.1 inches/5.3 cm), and Western Mountaineering Flight Jacket (1.6 inches/4.1 cm). The Anti-Freeze Jacket is unique among the group of jackets we tested in that it combines a lightweight full feature set, good insulation, and high weather-resistance. That combination adds a few ounces, but the result is pure performance.

In my opinion, the Montane Anti-Freeze is a jacket not for bitter cold, but for merely “adverse” conditions. It performs very well in those conditions, and there are many places throughout the world where this jacket is a good match. It is indeed multi-purpose, but for harsher conditions. For lightweight backpacking, the Anti-Freeze is appropriate for the shoulder seasons in the mountains where the nighttime temperature can drop well below freezing and the weather can turn blustery anytime. However, it’s overkill for summer mountain backpacking where the extra features and protection are not really needed and a minimally featured jacket with a high warmth to weight ratio is a better choice.

Specifications and Features

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

For the shoulder seasons and for some winter camping situations, many hikers prefer to use a sleeping bag with a temperature rating of 10-20 F (-12 to -7 C). Others may prefer a warmer bag like this for summer backpacking in the mountains, simply to ensure they don’t get cold. While the latter group could benefit from our lightweight philosophy, as explained for sleeping bags in our article: Ultralight Three-Season Down Mummy-Style Sleeping Bags: State of the Market Report 2010, both groups can save weight by carrying an ultralight sleeping bag.

Sierra Designs claims their Vapor 15 is the lightest 15 degree down mummy-style sleeping bag on the market (we will check that out in this review). The Vapor 15 sets another landmark for Sierra Designs – their first bag featuring 850 fill power down – rivaling bags from Marmot, Feathered Friends, and Western Mountaineering. What is there to like and dislike about the new Vapor 15, and how does it stack up, by the numbers, to comparable bags?

Description

As a departure from other bags in Sierra Designs Ultralight Series, the Vapor 15 raises the bar to 850 fill power down. It has the same Jacket Hood and half-length (25 in/64 cm) zipper as other bags in this series, but it does not have the Sierra Designs Flex Technology used in the other bags. Also missing is a footbox zipper – I guess they assume that most users will want to retain heat in a 15 F (-9.4 C) rated bag.

The 15 denier nylon shell and lining fabric used in the Vapor 15 are lighter and more durable than the 22 denier ripstop polyester used in other bags in the Sierra Designs Ultralight Series.

Although the Vapor 15 does not have a women’s version, it does come in a size Short that fits people to 5 feet 6 inches (1.7 m). It also comes in size Regular that fits people to 6 feet (1.6 m), and Long that fits to 6 feet 6 inches (2 m) (read my issue on sizing in the Performance section).

Performance

For convenience, in February and March I tested the Vapor 15 in a single-wall tent set up in my back yard in an area where I shoveled away the 2-foot (61 cm) snowpack. Temperatures during seven nights of testing ranged from 27 to 12 F (-3 to -11 C). I also tested the bag in my igloo at 9,500 feet (2,896 m) on one late February night where the temperate got down to 23 F (-5 C). In the spring I used it on an April six-day backpacking trip in southern Utah where the nighttime temperatures ranged from 25 to 52 F (-4 to 11 C), and one late spring alpine backpacking trip where I slept between snowdrifts and the temperature dropped down to 18 F (-10 C).

The amount of 850 down fill in the Vapor 15 is 16, 18, and 20 ounces (454, 510, 567 g), respectively, for the Short, Regular, and Long lengths. I tested the Vapor 15 in a size Long, and measured the two-layer loft at 6 inches/15 centimeters (single-layer loft is 3 in/7.6 cm). Additionally, the bag has continuous baffles, so it’s possible to shift more of the down to the topside, if desired. According to our table of estimated temperature ratings based on measured loft (read our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings, 3 inches (7.6 cm) of single-layer loft translates to a 0 F (-18 C) rating, so on a loft basis it appears that the Vapor 15 is conservatively rated. Please read the referenced article and Ryan Jordan’s article entitled Sleeping by Faith: Bag Temperature Ratings and realize that sleeping bag warmth depends on a number of factors.

One important issue is sizing: Sierra Designs bags apparently run short. In my previous review of the Sierra Designs Nitro 30 sleeping bag, I found that size Regular did not fit a person up to 6 feet (1.8 m) as claimed. I found it too short, and my height is exactly 6 feet (1.8 m). Size Regular will fit people up to 5 feet 10 inches (1.8 m) at the most. In testing the Vapor 15, I wisely opted for the Long length and found it much more to my liking in terms of length as well as girth. In fact, size Long is just right for my height; it can accommodate a person up to 6 feet 2 inches (1.9 m), but it would be too short for anyone taller than that. The bag has adequate girth in the shoulder and hip areas to wear a puffy down jacket and down pants inside without being too tight.

It’s hard to design a sleeping bag zipper track that is lightweight and snag-free. Sierra Designs Snag-Free Zipper Track does minimize snagging, but it adds significant weight to the bag. The heavy-duty zipper track is apparently needed because the zipper curves across the chest area to the base of the Jacket Hood. I personally did not mind the half-length (25 in/64 cm) zipper on the Vapor 15. It makes it a little more cumbersome to get into and out of the bag, but I found it easy to adjust. However, the short zipper excludes the option to zip two bags together or to open the bag up and use it as a blanket on warmer nights.

So, how warm is the Vapor 15? In my testing, I wore only a microfleece top, bottom, and cap inside the bag so I could determine the bag’s actual warmth. I kept a down jacket and pants next to me that I could put on if I got cold. That happened only once, when the temperature dropped down to 12 F (-11 C). After I donned the extra clothing, I stayed nice and warm the rest of the night. On another night when the temperature dropped to 18 F (-10 C), I started getting a little chilly, but not enough to add clothing. I didn’t have the opportunity to test the bag in serious winter camping conditions, but from my testing experience I believe I can extend the warmth of the Vapor 15 down into the single digits by wearing a down jacket, pants, and booties inside. Overall, in my opinion the Vapor 15’s temperature rating is slightly optimistic, which is typical in U.S. made sleeping bags.

The bag’s draft tube along the zipper is on the bottom side, rather than the top side on most bags. It seems logical to place it on the top side so gravity will help hold it in place. During my testing, I specifically checked the draft tube to see if it was sealing the zipper, and found that it was. The curved zipper design seems to necessitate putting the draft tube on the bottomside to avoid snagging, and the curved zipper does keep the draft tube in its proper place. It should also be noted that the Vapor 15 does not have a neck baffle at the base of the hood, as do many bags in this temperature range.

I tested the bag’s water resistance with my “puddle test,” where I put 1/8-cup of water on a seam and allowed it to stand for one hour. No water soaked through the seam or fabric, indicating the fabric is very water resistant and the seams are tight.

The bag’s pad attachment straps are useful for a back sleeper or hammock sleeper. But I’m a side sleeper, so I had no use for the straps because I want the bag to turn with me. The pad straps are easy to remove and reduce bag weight by 0.5 ounce (14 g), down to 30.4 ounces (862 g) for size Long.

Comparisons

The following table compares the Sierra Designs Vapor 15 with some popular 10-20 F (-12 to -7 C) rated ultralight mummy style down sleeping bags. All of the bags have continuous baffles, and all data are manufacturer specifications for a size Regular bag.

As you can see from the data, Sierra Designs can reasonably claim that their Vapor 15 is, in fact, the lightest 15 degree bag to be found. However, the comparison is complicated by the different temperature ratings assigned to the bags. The Marmot Helium bag has 1.5 ounces (43 g) more down than the Vapor 15, and has an EN tested temperature rating of 15 F (-9.4 C), which further supports my observation that the Vapor 15’s temperature rating is a bit optimistic. The Marmot Helium is a better value than the other bags listed, and it has a full-length zipper, but its shell fabric is heavier and not as water resistant as the other bags. The MontBell UL Spiral Down Hugger #1 has 800 fill power down, is almost as light as the Vapor 15, and costs $91 less. It has a 2/3-length zipper, soft 12 denier shell and lining fabric, and its Polkatex DWR is superb.

Assessment

I have not personally tested any of the other 10-20 F (-12 to -7 C) rated bags in the table above, so I can’t compare them other than by the numbers. One main difference is the Vapor 15 has a half-length zipper, while the others all have a full-length zipper. Many hikers would not have a bag that doesn’t have a full-length zipper, but personally the half-length zipper is no problem for me. I need the warmth on most of the trips where I would take a 15-degree bag, so I rarely have the problem of overheating. Another reason for the half-length zipper is the bag’s Jacket Hood, which necessitates the curve in the zipper to the base of the hood, which in turn necessitates the heavy-duty zipper track for smooth operation and minimal snagging. A full-length zipper of that design would add too much weight.

Overall, I really like the Vapor 15. It provides plenty of warmth for its sub-2-pound (907 g) weight. It weighs about the same as many bags rated at 20-25 F (-7 to -4 C) and is significantly warmer. Its just right for mountain backpacking in the shoulder seasons (late spring and fall), certain winter camping situations by wearing extra clothing inside the bag as needed, and for cold sleepers who want to ensure they stay warm.

When choosing a Sierra Designs bag, it’s very important to know that the sizing runs short, at least that is my experience from the two bags I have recently tested. A size Regular bag from most manufacturers, sized to fit a 6 foot (1.8 m) tall person, normally fits me just fine, and I am 6 feet tall. Not so with a Sierra Designs bag. I found a size Regular to be uncomfortably short, but a size Long fits great. I don’t have any information on the sizing of the size Short bag, but I note that getting a size Short sleeping bag is a good approach for a shorter person to reduce pack weight.

Other than the length issue, I did not find any problems with the Vapor 15. It’s simple, lightweight, and warm – just the way I like it.

Specifications and Features

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.