New SMD Packs Now Available

Yikes! I read about the speculated weights before but now that they're confirmed I'm really disappointed. This just seems much heavier than necessary. I was hoping they would have switched to all 210 Robic which seems very durable to me. I was also hoping for a Cuben fiber version too. Also, I know one of the complaints SMD received was about the stated volumes. I have a 2014 Fusion 50 and it seems huge. I think they could have just switched the name to Fusion 45.

I am surprised at the weight gain. For that type of weight, I would get a Paradox pack.

The weight of the Fusion packs does put them among some stiff competition. At >3 lbs, I would expect excellent load carrying, robust materials and a full set of features. My initial armchair impression is that these packs don't really stand out in this weight category, but I could be wrong. The Flight packs also seem heavy for their size, but it appears this is mostly because of the chest/vest harness system that supposedly adds a lot of functionality if you've got aspirations of moving really fast. I like the idea of the Flight 30. It would be a neat pack to try.

These new packs are clearly not meant for the BPL UL crowd. As Dan pointed out, with those weights they are in an entirely different class of packs. SMD is still making some nice tents and tarps for the UL crowd, so I am thankful for that. However, they are clearly no longer in the actual UL pack market. I have no idea of what the heavier pack market they are now in is like or how they stack up. Paradox, Osprey, lighter end Mountainsmith stuff? The dream of REI shelf space or the reality of the Golite bankruptcy? Seems like they are doubling down. I hope they hit it right and do well.

The new SMD pack weights almost puts them in the traditional range, but as everyone knows, that happens to be the vast majority of the market. As Ron and Brian made clear when they first envisioned the Fusions, COMFORT was their number one priority. Some have said (in other threads as well) the new SMD pack weights now put them in a category with other load haulers which are superior. I'm not so sure about that. Paradox, Katabatic, Exped, ULA, and others make fantastic packs, but better? Why? On a thru hike where you might need to carry up to a 30 lb payload, I doubt if a 52 oz Fusion 65 would really feel much heavier than a 24 oz UL pack. At least you'd know the Fusions can comfortably handle the load.

"The new SMD pack weights almost puts them in the traditional range" Actually, the Fusion 65 weight is heavier than some more traditional packs (Osprey Exos 58, REI Flash 62), and almost as heavy as some Deuter packs I don't understand how the Fusion series gained so much weight. How did the Fusion 65 gain 13oz? Based on user comments, it seems the first-generation Fusions carried pretty well, they just needed: 1. Less garish pack colors 2. Good side pockets The first-generation Flight 40 was an overall great pack at 30 oz. How did it gain 7 oz? I see that as 7 unnecessary ounces now I agree that pack comfort trumps pack weight, and it's possible these packs are worth the weight. But I would not choose to carry a 52 oz backpack if I can get a 39 oz or 24 oz backpack that carries my load just as well.

I've use the original Fusion 50 since its initial release and find it carries incredibly well. I'm not sure where the new version gains 13oz as the main pack bag specifications are the same as the old (according to website)….and a longer extension collar, larger side and shoulder strap pockets should not add that much. So I contacted SMD via email and Brandon replied saying the pack dimensions were different but they haven't updated the website (would seem that would be as easy as adding a picture). Requested the pack dimensions probably a week ago and have yet to get a reply. I do like their products but communication and website information could be improved.

I don't agree with the comfort trumps all philosophy of pack selection. Packs impact your body in two ways: At the specific points where the pack interfaces with your torso (i.e. pressure points), and the effects of carrying the pack weight all day (i.e. tired legs). When you try on a pack in the store you're going to notice if it fits poorly, but you're not going to notice leg fatigue after just 5 minutes of walking around the store. So the danger exists of only considering the former when selecting a pack. Absolutely you want a pack that fits and carries well, but pursuing that to excess can be counter productive. If a 2 lbs pack sits well, yet a 4 lbs pack is slightly more comfortable, is the heavier pack a wise expenditure of 2 extra pounds? My opinion is that the lightest pack that fits and functions well is the best overall choice, even if a heavier pack is marginally cushier. A frequent lightweight mistake I see is considering the impacts of a gear choice in isolation from the rest of your kit. Comments like "I won't notice the extra 2oz if I choose this 4oz light over a 2oz light" and "One extra pound isn't going to make any difference" fail to consider where this thinking leads. If you're routinely choosing gear that is substantially heavier for some arguably minor functional increase, you might not notice the effects of any one choice but you will notice the combined effects after a couple years of ballooning your kit. Weight isn't everything, but we should require high amounts of beneficial functionality before accepting weight increases. For me, a 3.25 lbs pack like the Fusion 65 would have to have compelling and unique functionality to be a good choice in today's world of highly capable 1.5-3 lbs packs. Perhaps SMD can make that case, but I haven't seen it yet.

Well said, Dan. Since I "got religion" here I would not think of going backward to a heavier pack. Im still not done moving forward to lighter ones yet. Also Dan describes what one might call stacked error in machining. Small deviations from a single part that might seem acceptable until your adding the sum of all the parts. So what I have learned from the ULer's is as I move closer to diminishing returns best to hold to my principle of lighter is better as long as function stays the same. Comfort now is the only variable that messes with my head ;)

Dan does makes some good points. I own the first generation Fusion 50 and I certainly wouldn't trade it for the new heavier version. Mine weighs 39 oz…love it! The actual weight of the New Fusion 65 is 3.25 lbs not 4 lbs. A little too heavy for most of us BPLer's, but for the majority of pilgrims out on there the trail, the 2nd generation Fusions are a good durable choice. And it's true that you have to remain vigilant in order to stay light. An ounce here and a couple there and before long you're not UL anymore. No one is more weight obsessed than I am, however with payloads over 12 lbs I simply must have a framed pack with a rigid belt that properly displaces the weight onto the hips. The soft belts that just wrap around are lighter, but they don't work for me.

I own both packs. I first bought the Fusion 65 when it first came out last year for family trips. It was ok when the pack was less than 20 lbs but became uncomfortable over that and unbearable over 30 lbs. I gave up after 6 hikes and got an Unaweep for a long trip with the family. That trip I was carrying 40-50 lbs and it was very comfortable. I just did a trip where I started with 27 lbs and finished with 11 lbs, the Unaweep was comfortable the whole trip. Now that Fusion 65 is heavier than the Unaweep its a non contest for me. My wife and a couple of other friends tried the Fusion 65 but all found it less comfortable than a Circuit. Considering what Dan said, I would have a hard time recommending a Fusion pack.

Their FKT pack would have to carry remarkably well to warrant someone wanting one for an FKT over say an ArcBlast/ArcHaul…which already carry exceptionally well at half the weight. Adding belt and shoulder pockets for on-the-move accessibilty has been long solved. FKTers doing actual FKTs that are long enough to warrant that much load carrying capacity (weight and volume) aren't running anyway, or at least so very rarely a smidge of difference of a vest front vs detachable pocket front doesn't matter (eg right at the end where they could have basically empty front pockets anyway so don't care about bounce). I don't buy that the weight increase over other options is worth it at all here. I think its just marketing spin putting FKT on the end of the pack name. Which is a shame. SMD should listen to people really pushing the boundaries of FKT. Read some of the threads on BPL with Ralph and others chiming in. See what they are doing. Its not hard. A few hours of research and reading would yield them wonders. I have little doubt that is what MLD are doing which is why they are about to come out with four FKT labeled products that they think will hit sweet spots in the market for certain types of FKT. They should do something like a Cuben Gatewood, like they deliberately rumoured a couple of times over the last few years. A Gatewood with slightly reduced dimensions (less flap, better for wearing esp if moving hard and fast) in cuben would be a far better FKT instrument (in the right circumstances, of course) than this "FKT" pack. Heck I'd by one in an instant.

My problem with any FKT for me anyway is if I'm going to be hiking, I want the weight on my hips. Anything over about 12 pounds gets real old on my messed up shoulders. It's really hard to faster than a jog with that weight anyway. Anything under 12 pounds and I want it small 12-20 liters. Only way I could think of any pack light enough to carry such a small 12+ pound load would be with a lightly padded hip belt with a large pivot to take the weight transfer and allow you to move quick.