BPL Absaroka Pack

[Nick Gatel]

"Good response by Dan McHale"

That is almost a given. Even in heated discussions Dan comes across as calm, rational, and extremely knowledgable. Always enjoy his perspective.

[Ryan Jordan]

Schizo runs deep in all of us I reckon.

I'm also developing a Cuben pack so … ha!

[BlackHatGuy]

"That's it, I am selling my tarp."

Yeah? How much? …….

[Bill Poett]

Anytime a PHD uses "ha" as a comback it makes me smile.

Well played Dr. Jordan ;0)

I'm sorry, as much as I like to argue I just like to smile more.

For a bunch of dirt dogs we all spend way to much time staring at a screen.

Be well BPL'ers

Bill

[George Matthews]

Predictions:

Those who get one will use it for UL, but will not throw away their SUL pack(s)

There won't be any left in inventory for the 2010 Gamblers Sale

Children of the large-beaked bird will sing and dance around the fire

[Sam Haraldson]

37 ounces IS too heavy for a pack – – when your aim is to teach people about the lower limits of ultralight backpacking over the course of a weekend. I believe the comments referred to from Mike C! and I were in relation with our teaching the WTS-WS1 courses in which we strived to teach students about absolute minimalism in their gear and practices.

For those of us who have tested those limits and are comfortable reeling themselves back in to find their "sweet spot". Or for people who are going to be trekking five, six, seven, even nine days w/o resupply then a 37 ounce pack becomes necessary.

And to comment on this pack's use for climbing – – yes, it would make a fine day-cragging pack. No it wouldn't suit itself well for use on a big wall.

[David Ure]

Sam – the discussion around the 37oz pack was for 6 days in the Beartooth Mountains. Not a 2 day weekend. For 2-3 days I use a frameless pack. Not for 6 days with 12lbs of food and water. Doable? Yes. Comfortable? No.

Is the belt removable on this pack for a climbing harness? Where can crampons be attached so that there is no damage to the pack body? Hopefully you can see my perspective now.

[Miguel Arboleda]

Reading the wide swings in opinions on this pack and what it should be used for I get the impression that no one really knows. More and more it seems like a pack looking for a reason to be, rather than filling in a specific need. At least SUL and frameless UL packs know exactly what they are and what they are intended for and for what weights. I also get the feeling that, as time goes on, the proselytizing about going at the lightest weights possible is gradually losing its luster and people are beginning to admit that going too light is very uncomfortable, perhaps even unsafe? I don't know… does this mean that what the traditionalists have criticized about the UL'ers might in fact have a bit of truth to it? This talk now, by the very people who helped to get all this so popular, seems very much at odds with all the early articles and discussions five or six years ago.

I'm curious, how many of you out there have found yourselves retreating and returning to heavier weight articles? Is going UL going too far? I've read quite a number of times now of people speaking of "diminishing returns". For us more experienced UL'ers out there, do you find that to be true? What items have you allowed to gain back weight?

[David Ure]

"This talk now, by the very people who helped to get all this so popular, seems very much at odds with all the early articles and discussions five or six years ago."

I have been thinking about this. Thanks for 'saying' it.

We should start a new thread in General Discussion about this. I always try to go UL, but it will depend on my environment. The Canadian Rockies can be unkind, whereas on Vancouver Island or in the Uintas Mountains in Utah in the summer I can get away with less 'back-up' in case something should go wrong.

[Scott White]

I have found myself desiring to return to a slightly heavier pack. I first achieved a 10 lb base weight with a vapor trail pack. It was an extraordinarily comfortable pack. However, I had just caught the ul bug and wanted to try to lower my base weight even further. So, I sold the vapor trail and purchased a 1st generation jam2. The jam2 was a great value at $80 after an rei coupon. I trimmed it to under 20 oz.
The jam2 was almost as comfortable as the vapor trail if I used a foam pad rolled as a virtual frame. Unfortunately I never sleep well on the the trail with a foam pad. After experimenting with foam pads, prolites, torsolites, and ba air cores I found that I sleep best with the thicker inflatable pads. Despite my best efforts to pack carefully I can't get the jam2 to carry quite as comfortably without a cylinder foam pad virtual frame. For the past six months I have been contemplating going back to the vapor trail. I have held off because I am hoping that the new bpl pack will carry as comfortably as the vapor trail and be a little more feature friendly.
I know a lot of people here are willing to carry extra weight to get a better nights sleep and for me that extends beyond just the type of pad to the type of pack as well.

[Luke Schmidt]

Interesting thoughts Miguel. Personally my favorite type of backpacking is to hike down to dusk with my little modified Golite Ion and SUL gear. In that sense I don't regret going light and expect I will eventaully get a bit lighter.
On the other hand when I have a friend who wants to stop earlier and go at a slower pace I'm more inclined to through in a few luxeries. If I felt like spending the money this would be an attractive "luxery pack" to be combined with a neo-air mattress for slower paced trips.

[Anonymous]

"Or for people who are going to be trekking five, six, seven, even nine days w/o resupply then a 37 ounce pack becomes necessary."

Not necessarily true, Sam. 9 day un-resupplied trips have been done with an OHM by at least 2 BPLer's that I know of. 14-15 days without resupply? Yeah, probably.

[William Johnson]

Nine days of gel packs and fat reserves? Yum!

[Anonymous]

"Nine days of gel packs and fat reserves? Yum!"

Nope. A diet very similar to that of Don Wilson and Alan Dixon on their recent Sierra trip. 1 pound 6 oz/day @ ~2800 calories/day. The keys, as they mentioned are careful attention to packing and calorie density. Also, I wasn't using a canister, which frees up space and weight, but I was carrying food for 10 days-we ended up coming out 1 day early. I have practice loaded my Ohm with food for 12 days. It fits by slightly extending the collar. The only issue is that I will be up at around 29 pounds, not including any water, and that is starting to push the comfort envelope a bit if I add in 2 liters of water for dry East Side Sierra approaches. Still, it is only an issue for a day. It is eminently feasible.

Fat reserves? Definitely. SOP for me. My calorie density is about 10-15 calories/ounce less than Don and Alan's. That is because I have a higher percentage of my food in carbs to burn my body fat. The downside is less total calories/ounce of carried food, but it works fine for me, at least up to 9-10 days. Much beyond that and I'd use less carbs, more protein, and a couple more ounces of fat.

[JR Redding]

"More and more it seems like a pack looking for a reason to be, rather than filling in a specific need."

I'm 6'3", 240 lbs and have broad shoulders. My first experience with a frameless pack was my last experience. While it was so nice to be "UL" it was ridiculously uncomfortable, un-adjustable and no it couldn't have sustained me for anything past an overnight. It didn't feel good to wear the pack.

Being bigger, my clothes are larger thus taking more volume, they weigh more. I eat more than someone of average height, my quilt is larger at 61 inches wide and 84 inches long.

When it comes to packs I personally didn't want to buy anything without having tried it on if it wasn't fully adjustable. The major selling point with this new BPL pack is just THAT. It's adjustable, a little more volume if you need it, able to carry loads more than a few days and while not "SUL" 2 lbs to a person like me is nothing. If the price is right, I may buy it based on those merits alone.

I think the pack will sell well if it is indeed as adjustable and durable as Ryan claims it is. Minimalist is ok and is a HYOH. Then there are people like me who want to be as light as can be, but comfortable. I think this pack will address that need.

[CW]

A 2 lb pack fits completely within the 10 lb base weight typically associated with going UL.

[dan mchale]

I like some of the honesty I'm seeing in this thread. I witnessed and lived through the soft pack/frameless pack fad during the 70s. Having done that, it was easy to predict what is being said in this thread. It's just a matter of time before people want to carry a little more to be comfortable, whether it's a more substantial sleeping pad sytem or carrying a more substantial pack. Once people see that going lighter than they even need too is pointless, then they ask what is the point? The UL movement hurts itself by making anyone think they are too heavy with a 35 lb load, whether it is for 2 days or 10.

[EndoftheTrail]

Sorry for going on a tangent, but reading Dan's post above, I agree that the point of going ultralight — at least initially — was to make the hike more enjoyable. Everyone has a "sweet spot" where the load is light enough that he or she can hike all day without undue stress or discomfort. Mine is about 25 lbs.

But like with almost anything, there will always be some who want to take things to the extreme. Nothing wrong with that as psychic benefits can feel just as real — but I do agree with Dan above. To the traditional backpacker unaccustomed even to ultralight backpacking — the quest for SUL will strike most of them as odd.

[Luke Schmidt]

I think after a certain point its not so much about comfort as challenge. I don't have time or money to go up to Alaska anytime I want but I can challenge myself in Virginia by carrying a lighter load and learning how to sleep under a poncho etc. At this point a complete 3 season gear list for me is about 8 pounds, 10 if I add all my extra luxery items. Thats plenty light but what do I normally do? I leave a lot of that great gear at home and go out with my little SUL pack, foam pad and poncho tarp just to see if I can. Am I just crazy or do other people here think the same way?

[dan mchale]

That just happens to be where you are at with it now. Maybe you will get over thinking it's cool to go out with your tarp. There is certainly nothing wrong with a challenge – that's what it's about for many. For many others, just getting out is important, and there are those that have used tarps, bivi bags and etc. that now use a nice light free-standing tent. It's when what you do HAS to be what other people want to do that it gets ugly. It's when it goes from challenge to dogma that I don't like it. Personally, I can't stand the term 'traditional'. Traditional seems to have taken on the meaning of 'those other stupid people'. I'm not implying that's what you mean Ben. :>)

[Luke Schmidt]

I agree Dan, its just a personal choice. My sweet spot is to try and keep my total pack under 25 pounds as much as possible. Beyond that, SUL is just a fun exercise. I suspect I'll carry more this spring when I go out with my friends (Tarp tent etc, we don't hike all day when we're together).
All that said I get really excited when I see lighter packs like the Absaroka and the Exos because in my opinion it makes reasonably light (as in less than 30 pound packs) backpacking more available to guys who aren't freaks.
Speaking of traditional my dad did some hikes in the 70s and to be honest it sounds like they kept things pretty light and simple even without all the fancy gear of today.

[dan mchale]

Yeah, it's all pretty fun. I still need to get a quilt to offset the weight of my tent a little. I hate to cute up my old WM Mitylite to do that!

[George Matthews]

"This version of the Absaroka Pack is targeted to thru-hikers, expedition trekkers, and others who want maximum comfort and long term durability out of a pack. We are designing this pack to carry 40+ pound loads in comfort."

In the write up, the first word THIS is underlined.

IMO, this version does not bring with it the demise of SUL. I still plan to use my Zpack and a 5 lb base weight on certain trips. Sure it's a mainly in the brain thing for most hikers when going below 10-12 lbs base. But it's like the reasons why they climb mountains and trek to the Poles or around Alaska or you get in shape or lose weight or play a musical instrument or master a camera, etc. – because it's there and can be done – and you need to push yourself. You have the power to make your life better.

My long range goal is thru-hiking so, for me, THIS version might be the pack I will use for THAT because it will be durable and comfortable. If there is confusion, then re-read the write up.

[James Dubendorf]

Man, I hope I'm not the only one here who thinks 10 lbs sure feels different than 20 lbs!

The "sweet spot" concept is a good one, and it can be unique both to the hiker and their situation. Just as terms like "traditional" can sound derogatory (many people hiking at that weight are carrying the hottest new technology), the notion that tarp users are "freaks" worried about looking cool isn't exactly a compliment. What a site like BPL can help any hiker do, regardless of their goals, is make educated choices about what kind of hike suits them.

Most hikers I've encountered on the trail with 30+ lbs packs have not CHOSEN to carry that weight as opposed to lighter alternatives. Either due to lack of experience, or a flurry of expensive impulse purchases at REI, they are carrying much more than they want or need, and regretting it. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that those kind of pack weights are always a result of inexperience. But choosing that load based on a careful consideration of personal preferences, the particular situation, and the viable alternatives is much different than succumbing to a marketing blitz on the pages of Outside Magazine.

I pack light so I can carry much of my girlfriend's stuff in my pack. She thinks that's much cooler than the tarp. ;-)

James

[Jason Elsworth]

I think this pack will appeal to those who haven't been happy with frame less packs and to those who are looking to do longer unsupported trips with heavier loads. However, it doesn't seem to me that the development of this packs shows that frame less packs were some kind of fad that didn't work and that poeple have now realised this and are moving on.

[Author]

Posts