Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report – Part 1C: Main Bag & Comfort

"Maybe we are being too picky or too serious?

Perhaps you're right Nick. I think many of us on BPL take ourselves far too serious on occasion. It is just walking outside with "stuff" on our backs at the end of the day, hopefully with a smile on our face.

"And my fantasy would be to TP his tarp in the middle of the night:)"

That enters the books of classic BPL comedy…

My feelings built up as I read the article. Then I read the comments. On seeing how much negativity the article had generated, I toned my comment down.

If you look back at early BackpackingLight analyses of the performance of various pieces of gear or of materials, you will see that the authors have made such an effort to be objective that the reading is a little awkward but revelations emerge from the preparedness to deal with physics. That has not happened here.

Didn't Ryan write an article on alternatives to TP?

Who packs-out the TP???

I really enjoyed the exploding gas canister article, not just because it featured research, graphs and a fun experiment but because I learned something from it. More like that please – stuff that I couldn't read in Trail magazine.

Reverse Polarity +1

I always hate how these discussion turn into this. Why must minor and understandable differences in opinion be conflated or disregarded? Yet it seems to be a perpetual issue with this site. I am not trying to be negative.

Reverse Polarity has a real point, and he zeros in on the only thing I am wishing to hold Roger to, his public word.

Reverse Polarity raises the point that insulting the intelligence or choices (intentionally or unintentionally) of your readership isn't a way to build bridges. Thats all I have been trying to get Roger to acknowledge, its not like I hold his choices against him. Contrast this against how he implies in the article that those who happen to use bladder sleeves are making "stupid" decisions.

He shouldn't be surprised to get a little bit of tough love when he prognosticates to an independent bunch to begin with. Its only the Internet folks! Are we all supposed to fall in line? How is any disagreement "negative"? Its just another point of view, and it happens to differ from his.

As other have pointed out we are a diverse community. It shouldn't be surprising when someone liberally throws around the word "stupid" that people might want to at least share a differing opinion as to why that might not be the case.

I am really getting to the point that I think we should cut comments off of these articles since the writers always turn non-responsive or defensive when people legitimately question their published work. If the writer can't deal with slightly disagreeing comments, and "radical transparency" demands from the audience then their should be no comments allowed on their articles to begin with.

I think that the problems happen when people clam up and don't want to talk about it. If you wrote it, you take responsibility for what you have said. That seems a simple concept to me.

Roger published this article series in an open forum that facilitates a process of Peer Review. I don't think it is asking much to answer for what you have publicly stated in any forum, let alone in a public and active community of your peers.

I am sorry if this is "negative" but it is my heartfelt concern. We are a diverse community and we should feel comfortable sharing our opinion without having it shunned into negativity when none such was intended.

Peace.

Another thing that the mass of Americans here should remember before going fully off the handle about his review is that Roger is from a Commonwealth nation. I'm unsure if this is universal but over the years I have noticed that there is a certian style used to express opinions for Commonwealth members that Americans find abrupt, condescending, and arbitrary. Essentially, if the speaker has any degree of experieince or authority at all the standard practice is to present his opinions as obvious and self-evident truths, and that any alternatives are ridiculous. Those who disagree are expected to do the same in good faith and start a jolly argument which, if all goes well, will result in an entertaining pub brawl and fun for all. :)

But this tone will tend to merely annoy the hell out of almost any American, who will get ruffled feathers and start making snitty comments.

There was a famous British kayaker a decade or so ago who made thousands of enemies on this side of the pond by disparaging American kayak designs and saying stuff such as "they might be sufficient for protected American waters", etc. (And now look- even the British boats are sporting keyhole cockpits. Ha! Joke's on him.)

Roger isn't quite so extreme- doubtless from prior encounters with we touchy Americans- but the basic premise does show a bit.

So don't take it so personally. Sheesh.

Of course, I could turn this all around and remind Roger that the Commonwealth style will innately annoy a lot of Americans, and he should remember who comprises most of his audience…

–BREAK–

So, on the subject of the whole bladder-versus-bottle thing…

I have seen videos of automobiles running over full bladders without causing a puncture. Unless you're hauling a sack of cutlery I doubt that any sort of "minor bump" will cause a leak. Leaks do happen, but usually in defective bladders or ones so old that they develop a crack on a repetetively bent crease or something.

That said I generally only use bladders on dayhikes- and that because they are so admittedly convenient. But on longer hikes I use bottles because it is easier to track how much water I have left when I'm using bottles (in those pockets that Roger hate; personally I find the Exos pockets to be superior), so I can plan where to stop to filter more and tank up. OTOH it's easy to find your bladder going empty when you're between water sources because you generally have to take your pack off, open it, etc., to check on how full your bladder is, and it is hard to remain that diligent over a long hike. Eventually you'll screw up and suffer for it.

If I'm really trying to camel up I'll carry both, but be careful to empty the bladder first. Seems a pretty good solution to me.

OK. You can have a dry list of facts, or you can have an opinion. I much prefer an interesting opinion. I can look up specs anywhere.

Disclaimer, i'm one of these bolshie non-US folk. :)

Have a look at recent trip reports. Many are from mountainous and wild areas. Not everyone treks on manicured trails.

P.S.
Us Scots made your country! :)

"There was a famous British kayaker a decade or so ago who made thousands of enemies on this side of the pond by disparaging American kayak designs and saying stuff such as "they might be sufficient for protected American waters", etc."

That reminded me of a former Canadian poster here who droned on and on about the unforgiving Canadian winters and how ONLY Mystery Ranch and McHale packs will do. The same poster also wrote that he would only buy gear made in Canada, other commonwealth countries, and the US. Jolly good of him to make an exception for us! )

Actually, I would argue that to a large degree Africans made our country.

And, shudder to think of it, without the French we never would have thrown you lot to the curb…

:) Smiley!

Personally, I find the colorful opinionizing rather amusing as well. I'm just trying to impart a little perspective upon My Fellow Americans.

And, I'll give the notable exception- Canadians generally don't do the Commonwealth Style thing. They're universally so polite and considerate that I want to strangle them.

And I have too little experience with Kiwis to make THAT call.

OK Dean. The US is an African/Franco alliance. :)

An old Scots saying is "We are all Jock Thamsons Bairns"

"And, I'll give the notable exception- Canadians generally don't do the Commonwealth Style thing. They're universally so polite and considerate that I want to strangle them. "

Agree in general. Which is why that particular Canadian ex poster stood out…

Don't mean to interrupt the chat room off topic buzz going on, but I'd like to comment that using bladders are very handy when mountaineering or skiing. Bottles have always worked too, I just find it easier getting fluids by using bladders when climbing.

Also, I tend to modify any pack if needed to suit personal choices. If the bag is right for me, I can replace pack straps or waist belts and , for example, add shovel sleeves for winter usefulness. The purchased pack may just be a starting point, go for it.

Thank you Roger. Looking forward to part 2.

As for bladders, i find that i usually just need to lean forward and suck on a climb if i need a drink. :)

"just what gear do you have which would fit into one of these pockets safely, and why couldn't you carry it in a pocket in your trousers?"

Lip balm and a couple of food bars to munch on as I walk, all of which can (and has) fallen out of my trouser pockets when I tried that option. Surely someone who spends so much time in the vicious Australian scrub would know…

I'm glad the authors went to all the trouble of putting this review together, really I am. But I'm tired of the myopic thinking behind it, and I've yet to read anything in it that is uniquely perceptive or insightful. Meh.

The Osprey xos side opening on the side pockets is for easy access to items while wearing the pack (as explained in their product info). With a bit of care such openings work well.

Re water bladder issues (I only use them for trail running) Stopping for water every two hours "at most" might work for camels. Even in the Arctic, active humans should hydrate more often than that

This is getting better and better. Last time we are told don't buy a framed pack without load lifter straps despite Backpacking Light giving Gold to such packs in reviews, and at the same time are about to bring to the market a pack with a frame with no load lifters. Based on the photos that is.

Now we read that extra pockets on the back of a pack are are marketing frills. Way to go BPL staff. Some help design a pack that others say we should not consider and has possibly marketing frills. Also those who added to the design across the back a rear pocket we are told – maybe they have the idea that anything stuffed into an external pocket does not really count when working out the pack weight according to Roger.

On Hydration bladders. Roger I use them and have never seen one burst in a pack and hydration as you walk is a good thing I have found, it seems many here as well have found that and is why they don't agree with you.

Is something in the water? Why are there so many people to pick such a personal bone with BPL?

If anything, everyone's outward personal aversion to how this review was done is NO DIFFERENT than Roger saying why he doesn't like hydration packs. Who's way should we do it? Yours? Mine? The noob? An experienced hiker? I know, lets just forget any and all articles henceforth. That'll fix the problem.

You don't like the review? That's fine. Either don't comment or politely explain how the review could be better, not laying heavy-handed remarks on how BPL sucks.

How about this? I didn't like any of the nay-sayers' posts. At all. In fact, why don't I neatly list the things I didn't like…..

Oh, wait. I have better things to do.

Flame on.

The mistake here is that the author decided to denigrate styles other than his own. Instead of saying "I can't imagine why you would blah blah blah, unlike me…" he should have said "this is how we worked the packs, here were our impressions, have a nice day". We don't need his opinion on how our methods are unimaginably misguided.

If you put it out there on the 'net, expect to get pushback. If you want no feedback, don't publish it.

Who says we have a bone with BPL. Its called challenging the comments and views. That is what you get with a forum. As for the effort Roger put in to the review I cant complain. But if you contradict other reviews of products and dismiss equipment given Gold by other BPL staff you will get challenged.

If someone does not like hydration packs say so but don't say those who use them are doing something the author sees as silly.

It appears as if the negativity in the article has spawned quite a bit more negativity from commenting members. None of it really does any good.

I like to read the state of the market reports to glean a general understanding of what's out there, verification of specs, and an overview of the features along with the reviewer's observations. The down sweater SOTM was approached much differently and seemed to have a very positive response. What I liked in that report was that it presented the facts and allowed me to form my own opinions and conclusion. What we have here comes across more like 'state of reviewer's opinions' with other useful information interspersed.

For those commenting, maybe it would be more useful to offer a simple "thank you for the effort" along with a friendly constructive criticism on the article.

So… Thank You for the effort Roger, and as for myself I'd prefer articles to stick more to the facts and findings seeing how we have plenty of opinionated peoples in the forums :)

First, I think it's cool that BPL is at times internally contradictory. (It's obvious Roger didn't design the Absaroka pack, for instance.) The outdoors are a big tent, and as silly a phrase as I find HYOY to be, it is a useful idea to keep in mind.

Second, I (plainly) don't think that given the article the critcism is out of line, or at all surprising. Just as there are good reasons for the article(s) to be written as they were, so too are there reasons to think that approach inadequate.

I have no problem with challenging or plainly disagreeing with a viewpoint, and Jacob D's comment is all I'm really getting at. He says: "For those commenting, maybe it would be more useful to offer a simple "thank you for the effort" along with a friendly constructive criticism on the article."

However, when posts include statements like:

"This is an erroneous and completely incorrect statement. In five years in the army, with much heavier packs then what anyone on this site would ever carry, I never popped a bladder while it was in my rucksack. If 45 lbs won't pop a bladder 25 lbs won't."

—quite an absolutist statement. While I agree that the chances of the bladder popping are very small, statements like this could benefit from the same criticism directed at the review.

"but the review is very biased towards the authors personal prejudices and local usage rather than a dispassionate review of the packs features and fit. It's a very unusual way to review packs."

—should he attempt to review things from the viewpoint of strangers hundreds and thousands of miles away?

"If the writer can't deal with slightly disagreeing comments, and "radical transparency" demands from the audience then their should be no comments allowed on their articles to begin with."

—"slightly disagreeing" is a bit off, I think. And shutting down comments is worse than anything.

"But I'm tired of the myopic thinking behind it, and I've yet to read anything in it that is uniquely perceptive or insightful. Meh."

— the review isn't done yet.

"Now we read that extra pockets on the back of a pack are are marketing frills. Way to go BPL staff."

"maybe they have the idea that anything stuffed into an external pocket does not really count when working out the pack weight according to Roger. "

—cheeky comments don't help either.

Again, I'm not against constructive criticism, but many people in this thread took on a viewpoint that is quite stand-offish and unlike the usual genteelness found on BPL threads. Not to mention tiresome to read. Probably like my own post here. Oh well.

Edit: Dean' post reminded me of something regarding the Commonwealth…
I had a professor in Graduate school who had a very similar personality to Roger's (or at least as much as I can tell from this website.) Coincidence or not, she was also an Aussie. Yes, at times she was overbearing and off-putting with her approach to things, but boy did I learn a lot from her and to learn to look at things differently. And that I appreciate.

Is characterizing something as 'the height of stupidity' 'friendly constructive criticism'? IMO, no.

I'd think BPL would welcome feedback on its content, positive and negative.

I have no objections to Mr. Caffin's expressing his opinions, it's the level of intolerance and venom demonstrated in delivering those views that's hard to take. I think any of the other BPL reviewers could have expressed the same opinions without generating this level of disgust.

Trying to be constructive here: I have suggested to BPL that perhaps Mr. Caffin could be given a periodic 'As I See It' column, where he would be free to vent in whatever manner he saw fit. I bet a lot of folks would would tune in, based on the SOTA in TV talk shows.

This is a solid, detailed overview of these backpacks.

However, this particular installment seems to be more subjective than the previous two. It's possibly more useful (IMHO) because it is a subjective opinion but I think that stating it is subjective may actually help.