Backpack – when is light too light?

I've done a lot of playing around this winter.

There is a lot of benefit to having some sort of 'proper' frame in a backpack – even a light one.

The very light packs tend to be little more than bags with handles – fine for putting things in but not so great for carrying load.

A backpack is doing several things:

1. It's carrying stuff.

2. It's distributing the load into you effectively.

The first one is easy to do. The second one is more difficult.

The second one is also where the weight starts to add up and quickly.

My current backpack (DIY) is 550g of which 90g is the frame and 65g the shoulder straps. It's done a week's backpacking just fine. It has actually felt a lot lighter than non-framed packs in the same weight category.

A backpack is one of those areas where a wise use of 'extra' weight pays dividends.

I'll echo Mike H's comment that a proper backpack frame and waist belt is more than worth the extra weight. It's possible to still have a lightweight pack that uses lighter weight fabrics and designs, that omits unnecessary features (sorry, but I *never* remove the top lid to use as a daypack. YMMV), but that still supports the pack weight by a solid set of stays and belt. I've modified a previously frameless Golite Trek pack to use a crude suspension and extra belt, and it really helps. OTOH, my 20 year old Dana Designs AstralPlane Overkill pack, at 8 pounds, sits unused in my gear closet because I'm not really going to be carrying 50-60 pounds. Not now, not ever. :-)

Sven,

I tend to look at it from a slightly different angle, starting with "what's the objective?"

I'm sure the Adventure Racing or JMT thru hike record crowd will find that an extra 1-2 lbs are unacceptable … because it'll make a difference in times and if you are racing then no time difference is too small if it'd put you ahead of the one your racing.

For the more pedestrian of us (see my avatar) the determining factor might be "am I comfortable enough". My first UL pack was a size medium Golite Breeze … no features designed to add support and I would have been happy with it except that at the time I didn't have my gear volume down to where it would fit. I got the chance pick up a used Granite Gear Virga for a good price. It was a good fit. It has some but not a lot of comfort features and the volume is about right for me equipped for 20*F and up. With 5 days food and water for northern New Mexico in July it tipped the scales at 30 lbs. Most Virga users say that is beyond their comfort range but it worked for me … but I now wish it were a bit smaller … go figure.

I also picked up a nice used Latitude Vapor for real winter. It'd be definitely be cushy relative to the Virga but the weight penalty would translate into almost a quart of water and having gotten dehydrated once or twice, I'm not planning on repeating the experience. Plus I know what I'd do with an extra 700CI … add more gear.

I also have an MYOG G4. It's much too large for the gear I now pack although it did OK for a northern MN winter overnight and it might mean I'm selling the Latitude Vapor.

I spend a portion of my day dreaming time wondering what sort of MYOG pack might displace my trusty Virga. I think it would borrow a lot from the Virga but have a slightly cushier hip belt.

So it seems that for me, a pack with some sort of hip belt that can be compressed to pack my gear tightly provides all the support I desire.

Man this is a ramble …. know any good courses on concise writing?

Have you had the experience that a more fully-featured pack in the 1-2 lbs range actually FELT lighter and more supportive than the ultra-ligth models despite the actual increase in carried weight? If so, has it made you choose a heavier pack instead?

Yes. Although, it's mostly noticeable on long trips (longer than 3-5 days, depending on how far you go per day). I think we could make a graph that plots weight vs. frame stiffness, vs. length of time a pack is on your shoulders. Overall decreased weight can help, but long trips, you're carrying a lot of weight from food and maybe a slightly heavier shelter for long-term comfort anyway. The extra couple pounds from a backpack's frame is worth it to me.

Yes, I find carrying my GoLite Gust attached to a LuxuryLite frame feels lighter than the Gust alone. But I'm a chick, and in general we HATE having weight on our shoulders. The LuxuryLite frame allows me to put all the weight on my hips if I choose, so it feels lighter.

You might think that adventure racers would only win with the lightest backpack but look at this http://www.aarnpacks.com/news/index.html look down to August 07 when Robert Jarvis won the Atacama desert 6 day race using a 30 litre Aarn body pack. I am sure this was not the lightest pack in the race because it has extra front pockets to balance the load front to back. I think this shows that energy efficiency of carrying the total load is more important than pure rucksack weight.
If you are interested, Aarn's site has academic research to show that his bodypacks are more energy efficient than standard backpacks. Of course if you are carrying a windshirt and an energy bar the pack is not so important as if you are carrying 15 lb of base load, food and water.

In one of the BPL publications (I believe it was this one) it mentioned torque in backpacking. Essentially, it stated that along with the weight pushing down, you also have a weight pulling you back. This weight throws off your stride and adds quite a bit to your fatigue. Thus, you would be much more conformable carrying a 10 pound belt than carrying a giant ten pound balloon on your back. So one of the main purposes of a pack is to not only distribute your weight mainly to your waste, but to compact the load so that it pulls you backwards less. This means that the weight of the frame and belt will hurt your back less than the weight of just about any item you carry (since the frame and belt is close to the back).

Personally, I look at the overall structure of a pack and see if it is appropriate for the weight I carry. If most of the packs weight is in the frame and the pack is reasonably light weight, then I think it is good. I once owned a G4, and while this is a great pack, I was carrying much too much weight for it (although it performed surprising well — sort of like towing a boat with a Prius and still doing OK). I have since replaced it, but if I could get my base weight low enough, I’m sure I would be happy with that pack. Meanwhile, I have been much happier with my Granite Gear Vapor Trail. There are a few tweaks I would make to get the weight down (such as lighter material) but it has few bells and whistles, so much of the weight is in the frame and hip belt (and it has a great hip belt in my opinion).

I don't know… it all makes sense… but I LOVE my 6 – 15 pound (with food) 3 day loads with my GG Whisper. No frame. No hip belt. No sternum strap. Freedom. Pure heaven.

Yesssss If I could get my pack down to 15lb total (including water and food), then I probaly would do fine without extra frame support…

A lot of it is personal preference. I prefer having most of my weight on my waste. If it wasn't for the thump, thump, thump of a butt pack, I would use that (I tend to bounce a lot while walking).

That is with food and water… maybe 16 or 17 pounds max. right off the bat… leaving the trailhead. And yes… that's pushing it for the Whisper… but I don't stay at that weight for long. I carry fresh fruits and veggies on trail (along with the typical bars, bagels, dehydrated dinners, etc.)… so my food weight goes down fast. Also, my hikes up here in Canada are all boreal forest and there's water everywhere! I can easily get away with carrying only 1L of water if I want… tho' I usually carry 2L. Personally… I just love the feeling of freedom you get from having no hip belt or sternum strap… etc.