Ever blown a seam on an ultralight pack?

Hi Diane (and others)

From reading what you and others have written, I get the impression that it is not the fabric which normally fails but the construction. Right?

If so, this implies that the manufacturers are using design and construction (sewing) techniques which, while OK for heavier fabrics, are simply are not suited to the very light materials. Right?

In which case, a change in construction techniques might make a huge difference?

Cheers

I have never blown a seam on any pack, ultralight or otherwise; however, I did inadvertantly discover just how gossamer my Gossamer Gear Whisper is. Once while stuffing a wet windshirt into the front pocket one of my fingernails sliced right through the spinnaker fabric like a hot knife through butter! Ever since I have been extra concsientious about the care and feeding of the whisper, and we have traveled many a mile together.

As James and Diane implied, it's all about how one approaches the world in general, how one stands in relation to it, and is demonstrated in all things: care of diet, health, relationships, possessions, ect. Someone who boasts of being "hard on gear" is in all likelyhood to be obnoxious to those around him and a wilderness ethic scofflaw.

As for Backpacker, I have been a subscriber since issue #1 and have gotten a lot of good useful information from it over the years, albeit less in recent years because they, as have many other magazines, abandoned in-depth reporting in favor of one or two sentence soundbites, a regrettable response to the digital age generation. Over those years they always gave a nod to the counterculture of backpacking, but the reality is that they have to keep the greater focus on their advertisers. Subscriptions don't pay the bills, advertisers do. Which may be one of the reasons Backpackinglight mag failed. At the time of it's demise the cover price was $9.95 and few advertisers; I would have been willing to pay, say, $15 to keep it going if that's what it would have taken.

@Roger: Solid synthesis. Perhaps wider seam allowances? McHale uses 1/2 in seams on all his packs.

@ Joe Geib and others: Yes, that would create more work for the UL packmakers, but if demand increases, the UL packmakers may expand themselves to meet the demand. Or (gasp!) mainstream established companies (other than GoLite) will produce more and more UL packs. Competition can be bad, but can it be all bad? Good point about Joe Valesko, though. I can't argue there. Also, the magazine is great for ideas, places and food. I occasionally like their journalism (which is part of why I originally subscribed to Outside last year).

@ Diane: nice post, and the best of this thread. That's the kind of thoughts and ideas I was kicking around and looking for comments on.

@James: Excellent comment about taking REI comments with a grain of salt. People are either seriously hard on gear either by legitimate use or ignorant use. I'm going to guess the vast, vast majority is the latter.

@Monty: advertisers v. subscribers is a huge issue in big-city newspapers. Although that topic is outside the scope of this post, it is relevant here. Also in this issue, their gear editor took a trip with Ed Veisturs, Peter Whittaker and Dave Hahn – all world-class mountaineers. These three men are half of the design team of First Ascent, a (new?) gear company promoted by these three and which holds the first two pages of advertising in the mag. Coincidence?

One comment that not has been made: the sheer economics of returns affect the products that are sold. Returned products eat into profits, and REI's return policy perpetuates this. It is not in their financial interest to sell products that are not bombproof.

Finally, I think the magazine is caught in the middle of two camps: advertisers pay the bills, so thrashing the gear the advertise may reduce that advertiser's number of advertisements in the magazine. In the opposite camp are the subscribers and other readers. They owe a duty to these consumers to thrash products that are crap and call out gear companies for putting forth garbage (like the terms "fastpacker" and "light and fast").

PS: I'd like to see the balance sheet and other financial documents for the company that publishes BACKPACKER.

>PS: I’d like to see the balance sheet and other financial documents for the company that publishes BACKPACKER.

Well, I can’t really tell if their parent company, Active Interest Media, is publicly traded. If they are, you could always just buy a share. Records galore. :)

Wanna know what The North Face is up to? VF is trading at $66.06. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

…

I was pointed to this post by Matt Lutz. I run ZPacks.com, Here are my two cents-

So far I have never had a return or complaint for a seam or fabric failure.

I rarely get returns at all, maybe three or four that I can think of since 2005. The few that I have had were problems with the fit for specific customers (usually very large or small people), or minor design issues that were quickly fixed. Never because of damage to the pack.

Sometimes I wonder if people are just shy about returning things, but I would much rather take a return and fix the issue than continue to make the same mistake!

Or it may just be that most people who buy ultralight gear aren't carrying much weight, and are gentle with it.

And never forget, some people could tear up a ball bearing with a rubber mallet.

As a more general comment, in my many years in retail I've basically only ever had packs come back for zipper repair. I tell people the packs have lifetime warranties, but they'll probably never use the warranty.

Some people are hard on gear, and not in an abusive way. A person who spends 90 days a year on the trail will put a lot more "wear and tear" on their gear than someone who gets out 5 days a year. Just using the stuff can eventually wear it out, whether it's UL or more traditional gear. As an example, two buddies wore out quasi-traditional packs on thru-hikes. One was an Arc-Teryx Needle, the other a framed BD pack; in both cases the frame wore through the material holding it in place. One was repaired, the other just got retired.

I was talking to some employees about packs the other day, and several said that they wouldn't buy a certain pack "because it's just too light." I was horrified!! Just because it's light, doesn't mean it's fragile. I have an ancient Gerry pack with leather patches, 420-ish denier packcloth, aluminum stays, 4 big metal zippers, about 60 or 70 liters, that weighs just over 2 pounds. It's bomber, still going strong. It just doesn't have a bunch of extra "features."

I think the reality is that most current UL gear is plenty durable for much use… not the SUL stuff, the cuben and straight-sil sacks, but many of the other materials.

I also think that Backpacker is kind of missing the boat. Baby boomers are aging. Knees and backs aren't as good as they used to be. I speak with many boomers who think they just can't go backpacking any more because they can't carry the weight they associate with backpacking. When I show them how they can safely and comfortably do the same trips with 15 pounds or less they're thrilled! I think it's a disservice to backpackers to not cover UL and lightweight gear more thoroughly. To be fair, though, Backpacker is expanding in that direction. Tarptent faired pretty well in the Gear Guide, for example.

All things in moderation, including moderation.