Ultralight (or even lightweight) panel loading packs

Its pretty light and quite simple and comfy carried the last gen on a 100km trip and my friend swears by his.

Thanks – looks like a nice pack, the volume is a little on the small side though, it's a pity they don't do a larger version.

…actually I wonder if the 35L volume stated on the site is wrong, it would be awfully strange to drop 15L from the volume from the older version.

some times their on Sierra trading post for about 80USD i got mine for $50

ULA Camino: 1.18 kg, 59 L, 'up to 18 kg load', Panel loader.
Not sure whether it has reached their web site yet.

Cheers

Don't forget the venerable Mountainsmith Ghost! Great pack. Too bad it's not being made anymore.

I still have my 2006 GoLIte Lightspeed. It's not small. I'd say it is bigger than the Ghost in volume, and perhaps even too big for most UL 3-season backpacking.

By the way, whatever happened to Mountainsmith? You just don't hear about them anymore.

When we were looking at the Lightspeed packs, I noticed that the women's pack was significantly smaller in volume than the men's pack. Something like 2200 cubic inches versus 3000. That was a year or so ago, though, so it could be different now.

Perfect timing. I was just listening to an old Trailcast podcast interviewing Brian Frankle. He was saying that he had people wanting to make a panel loader. He said he would never do it because it went his core principles of pack design. Why introduce a component that when it fails would be catastrophic. New owners,new mentality. I don't have so much in my pack these days to see the need myself.

Love Panel Loaders.

The new Osprey Stratos 36 is a 3#/1.36kg panel loader. Much improved over older models. Not quite at the 2kg mark is the Gregory Z65. Other option is to find a pack you like, then just sew in some zippers.

http://www.ospreypacks.com/Packs/StratosSeriesDayHikingVentilated/Stratos36/

Ken:

Might you be referring to the zipper as the "component that would be catastrophic when it fails"?

Anything can fail — including shoulder straps and certainly plastic buckles. But two thoughts:

1. Millions and millions of people use zippered luggage for their travels — and the rigors of traveling are on a scale vastly more demanding than hiking. Quality zippers rarely fail — even after decades of use — unless users habitually and grossly overpack — which is a misuse, of course.

2. But should a zipper fail, one can always improvise and secure one's pack with duck tape, tent cords, or what have you. It's not hard, and rarely 'catastrophic'.

@Ben, that's what I was thinking, too. Not only that, but millions of people use zippered panel-loading backpacks every single day and the zippers rarely come apart.

I also thought, well, if a slash happened to open in the side of a top-loading pack, wouldn't that be just as "catastrophic"?

What does "panel loading" mean?

I'm extremely happy with my current backpack (a Mountainsmith Ghost – which is apparently a panel loader!).

But am just curious what the term means and why you prefer it (or why some people do not prefer it).

Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

While a "traditional" top loader has the collar / extension collar on top of the pack with a drawcord opening, a panel loader offers access to pack contents via the FRONT of the pack via a zipper (usually an inverted horseshoe shape).

One advantage is the ability to access stuff in the bottom of the pack without having to remove stuff on top.

Todd

Todd has described a panel loader. Perhaps their main use is for hostelling: you can put your pack down flat on your bunk, open it up, and access everything without having to empty your pack. Can be useful!

Cheers

I was paraphrasing what Brian had said in his Trailcast interview.

Sorry Ken, I re-read your post and missed it the first time. Methinks Brian's fear of catastrophe is overblown on both counts: frequency and magnitude.

Of the bags mentioned,
GG Latitude Vapour – Out of production; not found on website
Mountainsmith Ghost – Out of production.
Kelty 3100 Redwing – Looks like out of production too; not found on website. Also, is not light at 1.5kg/ 53oz.
GoLite Litespeed – At 35L, is too small (women's even smaller!)
McHale – Exhorbitant prices in the range of $600 upwards!

What's left is:
SMD Traveler – Out of stock (but I guess you can get it if you're patient)
ULA Camino

Is there really nothing else?
I am looking for an ultralight panel-loader for travelling.
I've only managed to find the two I've mentioned.
Sigh.

And if you're looking for a panel-loader with internal frame, then the ULA Camino is the only one I have found.
Please post if you know of any others.

Chris Zimmer can make you a custom backpack to your specifications for way less than a McHale.
I just received one from him- very professionally made.
http://www.zimmerbuilt.com

Adrian,

I was looking for a panel loader myself a while back, what was available was either too expensive, hard to find (Mountainsmith Ghost), lacked volume, or too “heavy”. Chris Zimmer
constructed a great pack from some sketches and brainstorming sessions of mine a few months ago, I’m very happy with the outcome. Ultralight wasn’t the goal of the pack, changes in material could have changed the overall weight quite a bit.

Chris Zimmer creation “Eugeneius” pack

"Thanks – looks like a nice pack, the volume is a little on the small side though, it's a pity they don't do a larger version."

I was looking at one a couple of days ago and was surprised by how big it is: the thing is that most "30 litre" packs aren't anywhere near that (you can check that just by multiplying the given dimensions) so it might be worth checking the given dimensions of the Litespeed.

Don't believe me? How many "30 litre" daypacks do you know of that could carry a jerrycan? (Either as is, or even all of the contents).

And a jerrycan is only 20 litres ….

Wasn't there some mention of measuring pack volume recently? Maybe in the articles on framed packs. Anyway, they use something like ping pong balls. Pockets are usually included in the volume specs and they can be significant with a smaller pack. To add to the madness, some makers use model numbers that don't reflect the actual volume. Assume nothing!

I have a couple Osprey packs with vented "trampoline" backs and they look larger than they are due to the arched back and frame. I don't know how they compare for actual volume vs. the specs, and that hasn't been an issue– I guess my perception is trained to other designs.

> Pockets are usually included in the volume specs
But if you want to quote volume per the ASTM Standard then you can only include pockets which can be properly and fully closed. Open mesh pockets can NOT be counted.

Several American pack manufacturers seem to include all open mesh pockets, each one measured separately, to get a value which is simply not comparable to measurements made to the Standard. Caveat emptor.

Before anyone gets upset about this, let me add that I do not mind if the manufacturer quotes the volumes in detail – giving each one separately, so the buyer can make up his own mind. More information is good.

Cheers