Value of substantial suspension

This will be answered different based on ones comfort level. I've tried on loads of UL backbacks and I just can't get comfortable with them. That's why I'm currently with the Osphrey EXOS series. Sure they wiegh 2.5 lbs, but to me they are uber comfortable and well worth the extra wieght.

I like your idea of taking a great suspension system and srapping on a UL bag. Maybe I should try that with my EXOS suspension system?

I was wondering if it would be reasonable to take some beefy suspension and even do some releasable clip on system for different pack bags. At its most hideous, you could sew big velcro strips on the suspension system and then on different pack bags. Then you could switch out the bags depending on your needs for any trip. Feasible?

Is that like dirtbag-fabulous?

it is my opinion that the level of suspension should match the load. this may differ for the individual. my first internal framed pack was a GG nimbus. at loads of 20-30 lbs, this frame does its job quite well. but i;ve found that with loads less than 20 it feels a bit beefy and stiff. my last trip starting pack weight was about 12lbs adn i used a frameless pack with a CCF pad for the frame, and it matched the load so it carried well.
that being said, i'd rather have a overly beefy frame with light weight than the opposite. if a heavy frame kmakes the load more comfortable to carry, than it is worth the extra weight IMO. last trip my friend took his lightest pack and was not comfortable, he would've been better off taking his heavier (by 2lbs) pack and been comfortable. make sense?
alot of people use the vapor trail or even the nimbus ozone for that reason. it is a simple lightweight pack paired with a heavier duty frame and harness.
just my thoughts.

I have thought about taking an old Gregory Chaos-X pack and hacking off the pack bag, adding straps, and using a large drybag for a main compartment. I got the idea from the Dana bags of similar design several years ago, but I think the BPL arctic pack does the same thing.

When I took a closer look at the construction of a complex internal frame pack, I realized it would either be way too complicated, or — more likely — be a total hack job with a razor blade. I lack the patience to do a good job with it, so I sold the pack.

Hmmm, hadn't really considered the overall rigidity of beefier systems restricting my movements. An obvious over site…. That would definitely factor in the the overall comfort feel and practicality. dang

Ken- No doubt man, I was lookin at my pack and thinkin, 'man I'd murder this thing trying to remove the bag and probably end up having to use duct tape to fix my crappy sewing job- A job for someone who is not a novice, I suspect

A good suspension is critical for me. For a few years now I've been quite happy with a GoLite Gust cut down and fixed to a LuxuryLite frame and hipbelt. Complete freedom of movement with any weight load plus excellent air circulation plus amazing load carrying capacity (both volume and weight). All the weight is transferred to my hips, which is the only place I wish to carry weight. Lately I've been using an Exos 58 as well, and it does a pretty good job too.

I was wondering the same thing recently. My wife picked up an REI Venturi 40 and I just bought an Exos 46 in place of my Black Diamond Speed 40 because I wanted more suspension.

I guess it's mainly personal preference. I could see how a light load might seem "uncomfortable" with beefy suspension just because your back is slightly locked up with the rigid pack. And I truly wonder how her pack will feel towards the end of the trip when she only has 12 or 13 pounds on her back. The "comfort zone" was supposed to be something like 20-30 pounds I think.

I had 23-25 pounds on my back with the BD pack on our last trip and it didn't feel nice, but I don't think I was using the hip belt properly. I tried on the Exos 46 and fell in love with it, but now my pack weight is around 18 pounds for the upcoming trip.

I predict I will be fine, but I'll be sure to post back here and let you know if the wife's pack actually annoys her below 15 pounds.

For years, I used MYOG frames with suspensions patterned after the defunct Warmlite packs (Easton refused to continue to make the fittings for them in smaller quantities); that is, with side arms that project to hug the belt around the waist, and no buckle at the front. This system served me well with several packs at 50-60 lb. loads, when I could never have tolerated that much weight with a belt buckled around my waist.

Thanks to old age, BPL and technology, there came a time to lighten up, big time. This meant no more hip huggers, as the aluminum frames made them too heavy. Curved carbon tubes might have helped here, but tried Fibraplex and others, and could not find any. So what to do.

I had an old Alpine Designs pack with an hourglass shaped ABS frame supporting a suspended mesh backband (similar to the Exos) that I favored for trail work, as it was so comfortable with various implements thrown into it, even without a waistbelt, but only up to around 20 lbs. Probably this was due to the complete back coverage of the mesh backband, and the flexiblity of the ABS.

So I made a Spectra Gridstop top loader and sewed it onto the Alpine Designs backband, with some improvements. As before, I find that the pack is great up to around 20-25 lbs. Much above that, and the Osprey waistbelt I installed becomes uncomfortable for me.

All of the above is to illustrate, that from my experience, the frame is key, so long as the weight is no more than what the frame will accept to function effectively. You can attach whatever you want to the frame system, so long as the pack, and the way you pack it, keep the center of gravity as close to your back as possible. In this connection, was glad to hear that Osprey had redesigned their packs for this year with less space between the suspended mesh and pack, to bring the CG forward.

If I could ever find a carbon hourglass frame, and curved carbon tubes for the hip projections, to make a really light Warmlite style packframe, I would go back to my earlier design in a minute. There is nothing like dispensing with that waist buckle. FYI, a webbing turnbuckle arrangement was used to pull and keep the belt tight around the hips – just had to reach down and pull the webbing forward on the outside of each arm, and the belt tightened right up.

Good luck with your experiments. There will always be a better mousetrap.
Sam

"Would 20lbs with UL suspension be any more comfortable than 22lbs with world class suspension? Too close to call?"

IMO, the 'comfort' of a pack is an overrated factor that is hyped up by traditional gear makers and sellers. Sure you want a pack to be comfortable, but if one pack is comfortable then why add several pounds to get one that is 'more comfortable'? Only if your current pack is uncomfortable is it worth looking at heavier packs with more robust padding and suspension. I agree with Ben Wood that the focus should be on having your pack match your intended load. Going with a pack that is designed for a much larger load then you are carrying is just adding dead weight that is going to leave you more fatigued at the end of the day.

So to answer your question, 22 lbs with 'world class suspension' would probably feel more comfortable than 20 lbs in a simple UL pack when you first put the pack on in the morning, but after 15 miles on the trail the fatigue saved by carrying 2 lbs less is going to outweigh this tiny increase in comfort, assuming the UL pack is also comfortable and suitably transferring the load if necessary. For a 20lbs load you only need decently padded shoulder straps, a fairly minimal hipbelt and maybe a simple UL frame if that's your preference. All of this can be accomplished for 1 to 2 lbs for most people. If you're carrying heavier loads (20-35 lbs) then a simple frame and decent hipbelt may be a good call, but you still don't need a crazy suspension and huge hipbelt capable of 70 lbs loads.

Regarding the idea of using a UL packbag with a traditional packs suspension/hipbelt/straps, I don't think you'd save a lot of weight over just stripping the original pack. Even packs with really durable fabrics don't contain a ton of weight in the actual pack bag fabric. A traditional durable pack might use 430 denier nylon which is ~7oz/yd. Most UL packs use 210 denier nylon which is ~4oz per yard and a pack is going to contain 1-2 yards of material so you're looking at a 3-6oz savings for the fabric switch. Most of the potential weight savings that can be accomplished by hacking a traditional pack are removing excess pockets, zippers, straps etc.

…

To quote Sam Farrington:
"the frame is key, so long as the weight is no more than what the frame will accept to function effectively"

I would add 'and as long as the frame length matches your torso length'.

And there you have it.

Cheers

If I weren't such a fumble-fingered person, this is exactly what I would do for my grandchildren–cut off the entire bag from the REI Comet or Deuter Fox and replace it with a simple Dyneema pack bag. That way the kids would have the suspension they need (including load lifters to prevent pressure on the shoulders), yet have a lightweight pack.

I find it unconscionable that childrens' pack makers insist on using cast-iron cloth, tons of pockets and gewgaws to make what could be a 1-1.5 lb. pack into a 3-lb. pack. This is especially a problem for young children whose total pack weight shouldn't be more than 5-7 lbs. A 2.5-3 lb. pack is a lot of pack for a 45-50 pound child! It also means that Dad or Mom or Grandma has to carry more of the kid's gear because the kid's pack itself is so heavy!

Unfortunately, I'm not a sewer! I've therefore compromised by using butchery, which a poster on another forum described as "Backpacks Updated Through Creative High End Remodeling." I removed the lid, the extra zippers (sewed them up by hand), all the daisy chains and decorations and other gewgaws. Looks horrible, but cuts close to a pound off the heavy pack and carries well.

Sewing a simple dyneema pack bag would save another pound, though! Instead of assuming your kids are going to drag the pack over rocks and throw it off cliffs, why not teach them to care for their belongings?

For myself, I've done well with the Six Moon Designs packs (although they discontinued the one that works best for me, the Comet) with the "optional" (mandatory, IMHO) stays. Gives me a really supportive pack for under 2 lbs. They are too big for the kids, though!

my suspension is a little different and more specialized than others. Its not a backpack per say, instead a bodypack. I use an aarn featherlite freedom. The two large balance pockets in the front can hold 4+ liters of water/gear each each. They have stays inside them, bent to fit the front of my body. These front pockets, through great innovation, balance out the pack and realign the pack with my center of gravity. I can raise or lower the shoulder straps on the pack via a connector in the back, allowing me to fit the width/height of the shulder straps to my individual body frame. The hip belt is infinitely adjustable-even by angles up down left or right a few degrees, again allowing that perfect fit. It may weigh more than a ul pack, but the load carrying abiliites are a marvel. As roger said it is important to get the proper fit to your torso. Why carry the extra 2+lbs in this pack? Ease of use, all the gear i need i can access without taking my pack off, the balance, and comfort. Never had a red mark/skin abrasion/bruising on my neck/shoulder/hip area since using this pack. I won't be going back to ul packs. Don't criticize unless you've tried it, i've tried both worlds. It does take hours to get it dialed in right because there are so many adjustment points, but once you do, its a remarkeable feeling. A simple contrast is striking, i can put 40+lbs in a ul pack and its crushing after a day, i can put 40+ in this, and i don't even get surface redness/brusing on my neck/shoulders. The only thing i could think that would be better at load bearing would be the dixon roller pack, but i don't like the idea of not having my pack connected to me. I can cut weight in other areas to makeup for the weight of the pack if i want, but usually it doesn't matter to add weight becasue it carries so well i don't even notice it. Which allows me to go back and add more and more luxuries, worrying less and less about weight. I still put in the same mileage as i did before, but am less fatigued. How could this be? biomechanics. Its the same idea as people who carry heavy loads on their head, loads that would tire you out pretty quick if you had to carry it with your arms. Their center of gravity is where it should be, so the load becomes easy to carry. Trekking poles add weight to your total skin out, but ultimately make you less fatigued in the end as well. If biomechanics didn't matter and everything had to be as light as possible why bring your poles?

NM

…

The challenge is staying out of a hardware/weight spiral. If you are carrying an UL load, then you don't need much weight transfer– little to transfer! Packing your items properly and getting a firm column will do the trick if your system has a weight-bearing hip belt. Adding suspension just adds more weight to your knees and heart. All that padding and stuff wrapped around your body gets hot and sweaty when you start working up hill.

Load stability sounds like hype to me. If you have a 50+ pound pack, the proportion of pack weight to your body weight makes for loads that might jerk you about, so "load stability" might have some meaning. With a 20 pound load, "load stability" to me just means having the pack loaded properly and may require a sternum strap and a simple hip belt to keep it in place if you are doing something like climbing. On the trail, the major gymnastics I perform are rock-hopping streams and negotiating blow-downs, so I don't need much just walking down a path.

I wonder how much perception of weight is due to pack designs that make for big bouncy tubes that extend far out from the body? I think a wider, thinner pack sitting closer to the body feels better than a narrower thicker one. This is my falling out with the GoLite Ion style packs– like a rabid raccoon attacking you from behind :) Make sense? Many peak-bagging designs are made narrow to aid swinging ice tools, reaching overhead, and working with ropes. Hiking makes for a different set of needs.

Another issue may be just simple upper body conditioning. 20-25 pounds shouldn't be uncomfortable, but if you don't have much upper body strength or those muscles aren't in good condition, any load with any suspension won't feel good. No need to go crazy with that, just a good conditioning program. No different than getting your legs in shape for the same really. If you are flying a desk all week, have a light body frame, etc, a little help at the gym might do the trick.

Although you can definitely remove a fair bit of weight from a traditional packbag, I've found that a whole lot of weight comes from the beefier suspension.

I have an older Osprey Crescent frame, their older load hauling monster (now altered and known as the Argon). The hipbelt alone weighs about a pound. I (gasp!) haven't weighed the rest of it, but the shoulder straps are quite heavy, and a lot of weight comes in the foams and coverings of the backpanel. You also gain weight in having the customizable frame… velcro and multiple/pass thru layered construction for both harness and hipbelt.

NM

"Another issue may be just simple upper body conditioning. 20-25 pounds shouldn't be uncomfortable, but if you don't have much upper body strength or those muscles aren't in good condition, any load with any suspension won't feel good."

Dan McHale had (maybe still has?) a mention of this in his pack fitting section. He pointed out that the better shape you're in, the better the pack will fit you, especially for men, who generally carry their extra weight right in exactly the right spot to prevent the hip belt from hugging the top of your hip bone (IIRC it's called the 'iliac crest'). If the pack is riding your iliac crest, then it's a lot easier to balance and support your pack. If it isn't, it tends to slide down until the shoulder straps rest on your shoulders.

I tend to stay in pretty good shape whether I'm backpacking or not, so that hasn't been a problem for me, but I did find that when I put a heavy (I haven't gotten lightweight insulating layers yet) fleece, my pack tends to slide off of my hips more.

yeah my gut, ahem… carb storage tank pushes down on taller hip belts. That's why I like the Ohm belt. It cradles my Buddha belly in its loving arms and caresses it whilst moving down the trail.

I'm arguing against my own OP…

"it doesn't matter to add weight because it carries so well i don't even notice it."

Keep in mind that regardless of how well your packs fits, your legs still need to carry that weight every step of the way. You might not notice, but carrying extra pounds will tire out your legs more during a long day of hiking.

like i said i never noticed it, that included my legs. Because im still doing the same, sometimes more mileage in a day without issue.

nm

it can and it cant. Depends on your view of backpacking. i do crossfit, so im in good shape. Alot of people are hefty backpackers, they just do much less mileage thats all. Its all in how you take it. You can take 1 week to do the same hike i did in 3 days, but you will eventually get it done too.