Paradox Unaweep vs. Exped Lightning 60

can't comment on the Unaweep, other than say the reviews are usually good, but the Lightning will handle 30 # loads w/o any problem

I've been very impressed w/ the carry of the Lightning; I bought it for longer trips/winter loads, but find I'm grabbing it more often even for shorter trips

it has roomy belt pockets and roomy stretch side pocket and an ingenious zip pocket that is under the roll top, the main compartment is nice and roomy

thus far materials seem very sturdy and durable, a lot of pack for $200 (and often under $200)

Hi Mike,

Any issue with the top of the T frame causing discomfort, I had that issue with my 45.

Thanks,

Stephen

Stephen- no problem whatsoever; it's one of the most comfy packs I've owned

Did you play around w/ the length of the frame by chance? another nice feature to add to the list Also the frame can be shaped to a certain extent (have to be careful though, I think I read that someone snapped a stay-ouch!)

Mike

Hi Mike,

I found I could feel the T frame on the 45 right between my shoulders, maybe the 60 would alleviate this by sitting higher.

I did try being the frame but was afraid I would snap it.

Cheers,

Stephen

Bradford,
Are you asking if the canister would fit horizontally in the bottom of the packs? I have some information for you but someone should be able to do better. I have an Exped 60 that was purchased new a few months ago (thanks to Mike M. for the good reviews). I don't have an Expedition canister, 9 inch dia. X 14.5 inches tall, but I do have an old Bearvault which is 8.5 inch dia. X 12.5 inches tall (lid closed) plus a spare lid to simulate a 13 7/8 inch tall container. The container plus extra lid fit horizontally in the bottom of the Lightning with very little room to spare. I was able to jam another ~3/8 inch spacer in between the BV and the extra lid at which point the pack material is stressed quite a bit and removing the assembly was difficult. In addition I find it hard to fit my fingers between the canister and the pack with the tallest assembly in the pack. My guess is that you could fit a 9 inch dia. X 13 inch tall canister nicely but 9 X 13.5 would probably not fit or would be extremely tight.
I would hate for you to purchase a custom Bearikade based on my measurements (if you were so inclined) and hope somebody has the proper equipment to give a solid answer.
So far the EL60 pack has been comfy on two day hikes and one very short overnighter with about 25 pounds (packraft weight is why the number is high). Also I experienced no frame discomfort.

I already have the Expedition and I have given up on finding a pack that I can fit the Bearikade horizontally. I am planning on packing a few pieces of clothes in the bottom and then the canister vertically above that.

I think they would both fit my gear and would probably both carry 35lbs fine. I prefer the xpack fabric but have had good luck with the dyneema grid in the past too.

Given the Exped Lightning 60's lower weight and cost, I would recommend ordering one and trying it out. If it fits you well, fits your gear well, and is comfortable, then great. If not, return it and try the Unaweep. 32 lbs would be easy for me in my Lightning 60. I think the Dyneema X might be more durable than the X21RC, but the X21RC is waterproof.

@Stephen: the frame height and suspension is exactly the same on the Lightning 60 and 45. Only the pack bag size is different. Did you try using the load lifters on their higher setting? I found that makes a big difference for me.

Hi John,

I did try adjusting the load lifters.

I felt a bump on my back, just a bit lower than my shoulder blades, it was not uncomfortable but I could feel it, it was like I had something like a pot or gas canister sticking in to me (I had all soft gear in that area)

Bradford, if carrying the fatty bear can is your main requirement I'd look at the Unaweep Divide 4200. It's a bit shorter and wider than the plain Unaweep, specifically to accommodate bear cans. The feature set is also a bit more spare.

Luke Schmidt is the only person I know who has used both suspension systems, hopefully he can chime in.

I have looked at the Divide some, but there isn't much information no their website. Even basic information like the dimensions of the pack is missing. (i.e. The Unaweep 3900 is 36×40, the 4800 is 36×44, How does the Divide compare? Is the 4200ci measured from the top of the frame (24") or is to the top of the roll top or somewhere in between?

They also state that the 24" frame is only good to 19" torsos and I have a 21" torso, so I guess I would need 2" extensions.

I am also not sure about the mesh back pocket and water bottle pockets. It looks like the kind of stretchy mesh that ULA uses and I have found it not very durable. I really don't like stretchy water bottle pockets either (though I realize the Lightning has the same pockets).

It's also my understanding that the Divide is only designed to carry a bear can in the top 2/3 of the pack or strapped to the outside of the bottom neither of which sounds very appealing to me since of my ~32lb total weight, 20 will be in the bear can.

I am really intrigued by the Seek Outside packs. I have used X-Pac fabrics before and really liked them, and I think that their frame is at least theoretically the best, most innovative frame on the market today.

Does the load shelf really do anything on the Unaweep (and is it attached to the frame or packbag assembly?) I see it's usefulness on the Evo without a packbag where it supports the load of whatever you have strapped in the bag, but I fail to see it's usefulness when the packbag is used (as it always is on the Unaweep).

Overall they need some more information and better pictures on their website.

I have exchanged a few PM's with Luke.

I'd call Seek Outside about the dimension question. The Divide circumference gets bigger at the top, ergo ideal for bear cans.

I have a 21" torso as well, and I find the 24" frame just fine up to 40-50 pounds.

The load shelf on the Unaweep is sewn into the bottom seam of the packbag. It helps compress the bottom, and provides support for awkward stuff compressed under the Talon. For a backpacker who is always going to have a fullish pack, I could easily see it not being used.

Thanks for the help Dave. What is the circumference of the 3900 pack bag? The website indicates 40" circumference but I have also seen 38" and 36" and all indications I have seen is that it is 36" tall so I assume a useable height of ~31" or so. I am trying to compare to my current pack which has a 36" circumference and a 28" useable height, but is too small for this trip.

I am trying to decide between the 4800 and the 3900. I am leaning toward the 4800 as it isn't much of a weight penalty, but that seems overkill for most of my normal trips which are 5-7 days. Of course the ability to add a smaller packbag to the Unaweep frame for my "normal" trips is a appealing option.

How are the water bottle pockets? I use 32oz Gatorade bottles and want to be able to get them in and out while wearing the pack. I realize that is a subjective thing but just wanted to get your opinion. My experience isn't all that great with non 3D pockets sewn on to the pack.

Though I am leaning toward the Unaweep, have you tried or seen the Divide or the new thinner OD frame?

I wonder if they would do a few custom mods for a reasonable price?

My Unaweep 3900 has a 36" circumference throughout, and is 38" unrolled. It was one of the first ones, so the dimensions may have changed. It's a great size, and carries well because it is wide and shallow, but the shallowness limits the ability to carry stuff like bear cans. I find the side pockets easy to use, mainly because they're fairly low and far out (thus close to your side).

I haven't seen the Divide yet. I tested (and still have) one of the protos for the thin frame, and it's held up fine to lots of abuse.

That is a good overall size and similar to what I have now. For this trip it sounds like I would be better with the 4800 though if the 3900 is only 36" in circumference.

Any preference as to the frame? I think now I could request either for the Unaweep at this time. I hear they will be using the new frame on the unaweep in the future but don't really know the pro's and con's (there may not be much of any).

The practical difference between the original and light frame are probably nil, aside from a tiny bit of weight. The original is super bomber, and basically impossible to bend without a jig. The thinner is I believe mostly a response to making user modifications for fit easier. The stock shape is perfect for me, and I like the original frame for the overkill factor. I've pulled it through a lot of slot canyons with no worries.

So the new frame is a little lighter?

isn't the 4800 way bigger than the exped?

Well that depends on the way they measure everything. According to the seek outside website the 3900 has a 40" circumference which makes it 3300 cubic inches to the top of the 26" frame. Now Dave says his is 36" circumference which makes since if 40" is a raw dimension and you end up with ~36" after seam allowances etc. Using his measurements you get 2700 cubic inches to the top of the frame.

According to the seek outside website the 4800 has a 44" diameter making it 4000 cubic inches to the top of the frame but if you get the same loss of circumference from seam allowances that Dave's pack showed you would get somewhere around 40" circumference which would give you more like 3300 cubic inches to the top of the frame.

Of course that all assumes a straight pack with no taper and I am not sure if the Unaweep is tapered or not.

I did find a circumference number somewhere for the lightning but it was too big to be true giving a 5000 cubic inch volume. They list a 3660 cubic inch volume but did they measure that to the top of the frame or the top of the extent ion collar?

There is no standard of measuring pack volumes and that makes comparing packs very difficult. I do know that the 3900 with a 36" circumference would be too small for this trip as my current pack has a 36" circumference.

the Lightning is ~ 37" in diameter, maybe 38"- doesn't appear to be any (or much) taper

What happened to the Mchale, Bradford?

how funny that we all need to deduce so much and so little real info is available through the manufacturers.

you would think they would just put up all the information we need….

i was just referring to 4800 ci as listed by seek outside which is 78 liter, versus exped lightning for which is given 60 liters volume (3600 ci).

so thats almost 20 liters more for seek outside….

The Unaweep is tapered smaller at the bottom. The compression works well, so if you don't need all the volume, you can compress it down quite a bit. If you do need the volume, its better to get the larger size, imo, or you can purchase mulitple packbags. From what I've seen on the site, the Divide is a smaller frame than their original Unaweep. Mine is in Cuben fiber hybrid, which they no longer use. The water bottle holders are easy enough to use. I use 32oz gatorade bottles, too.

I still have the McHale, but it is looking like it is too small for two weeks in Alaska. It's only 2884 cubic inches.

We try to be conservative in all ratings as much as is reasonable.

We measure pack volume as height at three rolls of the roll top, not for frame height of fully open. We do use circumference / height with 3 rolls not including external pockets. Early packs were measured via packing popcorn, and this method was very close, so we use it.

The divide, for all intents and purposes is closer to 3900 at the bottom that tapers to a 4800 and looses a couple inches in total height. I would have to check patterns for the exact height loss, but it was mostly usability based (enough to be usable , but not overkill)

The stretch material on the Divide, well we had a lot of requests or packs with stretch material. Personally I have used a camo variation for several trips with a lot of brush / bushwhacking , moderate scrambling (class 3/4 ) and it has held up well. The stretch material has not held up as well as the X33, but i think that is unrealistic given the terrain but it has held up well and is very usable.

A bear can can fit higher up in the Divide pack to distribute weight better.

1/2 inch OD vs 5/8 OD framing, personally I think I prefer the 1/2 inch. It seems less obtrusive, but it is splitting hairs really. It is easier to fine tune, and I think has a small amount more flex / yield while still being strong enough for anything I have any desire to carry. If it gives up anything on the high end (above 100 lbs) it is very very minor, and honestly at those weights there are so many dependencies, every load / person could be different.