McHale Packs — Observations & Comments

"I found that making good use of specific stuffs in your pack can make a framless pack just as rigid as a internalframe backpack."

No disrespect intended but this is not possible. For an actual test of such a theory see:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/00194.html

What about 20lbs in a frameless pack v.s. 20lbs in a framed pack?

Since I consider 20 lbs within the capabilities of a frameless pack (albeit at the upper limit), my hypothesis is that I would feel virtually the same at the end of the day whether the 20 lbs total pack weight was carried with a frameless or framed pack. I think at 20 lbs, any difference in overall fatigue would be minor enough that I'd have a hard time detecting it, even if I were to carry the same pack weight on the same trail using these two different types of packs. Some people might get sore shoulders at 20 lbs so the framed pack would win, but for me I know 20 lbs won't bother my shoulders at all so I'd predict a tie.

I think a slightly more accurate question that includes the rough weight penalty of a framed pack is which works better:

1) Frameless pack at 20 lbs or;
2) Framed pack at 21 lbs

This is virtually the same comparison though and I suspect the answer will be the same….too close to really notice a difference. Both packs would handle the load fine and the 5% difference in total weight couldn't be accurately detected via qualitative observations. Maybe the placebo effect of knowing the frameless load is 5% lighter would make me feel better at the end of the day :)

If you made this same comparison at 30 lbs I think you'd notice additional soreness with the frameless pack, so the framed pack would be the winner.

Conversely, at 10 lbs the frameless pack would win because the extra pound for the framed pack would add 10% more weight and provide no real advantage for that weight.

In conclusion, for someone who's normal pack weights are 20 lbs and up, the framed pack would be the right call, whereas if your pack weights are normally 20 lbs or less then a framed pack would work better IMO for most people. The nice thing with a framed pack is that you can use it for any load if it's your only pack, whereas a frameless pack will punish you if you choose to ignore it's limits. For a one pack quiver, a framed pack is likely the right call for most people. Ideally I'd like to have a 3 pack quiver (frameless, frameless with stays, fully framed). My next move will be the frameless pack since I'm often hiking in this weight range (ie. tomorrow) and I'm almost never exceeding the 30 lbs comfort limit of my Ohm.

No disrespect intended but this is not possible. For an actual test of such a theory see:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/00194.html

Great link…this is prime BPL content. I'd never dug this far back before.

Good comments Dan and this is not about agreeing or disagreeing with you because I fully understand what you are saying. However, in my experience there is a distinct different at even the 20 lb weight limit you have chosen for long days in the saddle, so to speak. More load transfer and better load stability with the framed pack exist, such that an additional couple of pounds of pack weight (from the pack itself) are simply not felt to my body (shoulders, hips) the way the framed pack would. And at say, 22lbs with the framed pack, I will not move any slower than if I had 20 lbs in a frameless pack. In fact, over long consecutive days I will feel less sore. The 2 lbs will not make a big difference in total load for me albeit I am fairly stout in terms of general fitness. It may affect others differently.

On that note – thanks for the discussion. Good night. ; )

"At say 22lbs with the framed pack, I will not move any slower than if I had 20 lbs in a frameless pack."

This could be the basis for a really cool BPL article, but it would require a ton of data to get a statistically significant conclusion. Some BPL staffer needs to do the same hike every day for a month and alternate between 20lbs frameless and 22 lbs framed packs and then compare the average times :)

All of this discussion has me thinking about trying a McHale pack to expand my experiences. The other thing that makes me want to try a McHale pack is that I would totally geek out over the full Dyneema fabric. The $625 starting price for a full dyneema LBP is definately cause for a pause though…not that it's not worth it…it's just a big expenditure to carry load weights that I almost never carry. Then again, I did just sell my cuben tent fly so I have some extra cash floating in my paypal account :)

Wow. This is just what I had hoped for. Some sensible discussion to try and determine options and think things out without becoming dogmatic.

Lets keep the positive conversation going. No one is right, and no one is wrong. It is going to take a couple months for me to get the actual pack, since McHale is hiking somewhere in the Sierras right now. And I will keep everyone posted as I go through the process.

>> Any well fitting internal lightweight framed pack will carry better than any frameless pack at any weight.<<

But David, you have already drunk the McHale Kool-Aid!

I couldn't disagree more. What I will agree with is that a well fitting pack will carry better, be it framed or frameless, than a poorly fitted pack.

Under 20 pounds, I'm totally comfortable with my frameless pack. In fact, if I switch the same load (20 lbs or less) into any of my framed packs to compare, I always go back to the frameless. It just feels better.

My reason for choosing the frameless pack contradicts what you have said above about a framed pack being more stable than a frameless pack. I would argue that you have never found a frameless pack that has fit you well enough.

A frameless pack can be shaped to hug the body in a way that is not possible with a rigid frame. It can also be adjusted based on the load (which changes daily throughout a trip). The smaller the pack and the closer you can keep it to your centre of balance the less energy you will expend on compensating for balance.

Next you'll be telling me that my shoes can't be comfortable because they are not the same as yours ;)

In one of Dr Jordan's fantastic "Done In 24 Hour" videos I think he comments that on short overnighters you might as well carry a framed pack (I assume he was thinking of something in the 1.5-2lb range) as the overall weight you are carrying is going to be low anyway.

It would be great to see some hard data on all of this. To help find the sweet spot so to speak.

nm

David Ure wrote:
Dan – if you are ever in Calgary or Edmonton, let me know. You can check out my Mchale.

Now I'm confused here? You own a McHale, then what's the deal with the LBP36 I bought?

"But David, you have already drunk the McHale Kool-Aid!"

^ that's pretty good :)

I agree w/ several others that pack fitment is really crucial regardless of what pack you opt for- certain packs aren't going to work for certain people (regardless of how many other folks it does work for)

obviously are needs in a pack vary greatly- volume needed, weight carried, etc

if your base weight is in the very low range and your not carrying a lot of extra food/water- I would think a proper fitting unframed pack would be a clear choice

at the other extreme, high weight -clearly a quality framed pack would get the nod

what's unclear for me is the middle ground (which I happen to be at the vast majority of time)- I think I'm going to opt for my next pack what I consider a middle ground pack- the ULA Ohm- lightweight that is approaching some frameless packs, but with a "mild" framed setup that should provide a little better transfer between hips/shoulders

if that doesn't work, then maybe it's time to sample the kool-aid :)

What I meant was 42lbs in my Chasm doesn't feel much heaiver than 25 lbs in my Catalyst, beleive it or not. My last trip with the Chasm was in the Adirondacks in NY state, it was some of the roughest terrain I've ever hiked through and was surprized at how well I felt after hiking, and I give credit to the pack I was carrying. On the hike out we were dealing with ladders and huge boulders and the extra clearance at the shoulder straps really helped, with all the scrambling.

I've been through a pretty fair handful of packs through the years. Some with two stays, some with one stay and a frame sheet, one with a very stiff foam back-panel,some with a rolled-up sleeping pad inside, and some that are pretty much just soft.

I would say really, the most comfortable packs to hike down a trial with are the ones that are stiff enough to transfer all of the weight to your hips, but not much more so. How much of a "frame" this takes depends on the load and the details of pack design. With 17lb carefully packed in my old Golite Jam I could lean it back away from me for ventilation and pretty much carry all of the load on my hips. Not at all true with 30lb in that pack though. More stiffness will transfer more weight but at the cost of the pack moving more and more independently of it's wearer.

"Carries well" would have different definitions for different people. We climbers tend to carry weight on our shoulders in soft packs adjusted very close to the body, often times also a little short for our torso's. This really does facilitate movement on technical terrain, as well as the pack staying out of the way. We often describe a pack that functions like this as "carrying well" or maybe "climbing well." Most backpackers would hate these packs though. With a 30lb load you have 20lb on your shoulders and it feels like you are wearing a really heavy shirt.

I've come to like this very close feel from a pack, although it puts more stress on my muscle structure. Someone who is built differently and doesn't climb or scramble with a pack on will realistically be comfortable with something stiffer in most cases.

I would say that in practice packs vary along a range of stiffness depending on design and how they are packed, and it's really only relevant if compared to how much weight they are loaded with. It's not really a "frame vs. no frame" issue so much as a "how much frame" issue.

I've gone back to heavier packs to get the plush fit for me. I have tried a couple of light packs- close, but no cigar. They left me working for that perfect fit the whole hike. I don't think my legs the addn'l 2lbs. man… when I write that there is an extra 2lbs just in the pack- sounds like a step in the wrong direction. But for me, on the trail, back comfort is key. Sore legs are easy- jacked up back sucks

Screw it- my gear is light enough, gimme the sheepskin!

EDIT- to stay on topic- I bet mchales are sweet, but for me personally they are too much $$! Maybe someday

Having been a lifelong Seattleite (we do call ourselves that), I've seen McHale packs float by on the trail and sold in used gear shops, even a few at garage sales and thrift stores. I've equated them with Dana packs as bomb-proof load carriers, expensive and long-lasting, but not in the ultralight scheme.

If I were in the woods professionally and carrying heavy equipment like a scientist, photographer, or climber might, I think packs of this type would be more comfortable and durable. But I'm not thinking of UL loads or equipment inventory at all.

There can be a big difference between building an UL pack with a couple stays in it to improve load transfer and a pack with a full-blown harness and stays, with the UL pack and stays bridging the 20-30 pound gap and the bomber packs aiming at 30+ pound loads— huge generalities here.

The trap is the same as it always has been– heavier materials and adding pockets, zippers, straps, big buckles and all the rest, driving pack weights up.

On the other hand, getting a custom made pack that fits well is just like getting custom made boots– a fantastic luxury that makes sense, cost aside. Make sure you compare apples and apples there. Using cameras as a parallel, you wouldn't expect the same results from a $200 point and shoot as an $1800 DSLR. I would expect much more from a $600+ pack than my $150 mass produced rig.

On the UL side, there is a big difference between packs that are basically a stuff sack with shoulder straps and a well designed model with shoulder straps and waist belt that transfer load and fit properly. There are those SUL Spartan rigs that throw a lot of comfort and durability to the wind in the name of weight savings. Make your choices and live with the compromises— no free lunches served!

Now wouldn't it be interesting to take McHale's or Dana's knowledge of fit and load transfer and do a SUL tweak? Yowsa!

Nick,
Congrats and good luck with you McHale purchase.
I bought one from Dan this year for carrying heavy loads. My first trip with the new McHale was an 8 day technical climbing trip in the Colorado San Juans. My load at the trailhead, with climbing gear and consumables, was 53lbs. The trail, when I could find it, was brutal with steep climbs on loose rock and tons of deadfall to negotiate. Much of the trip was off trail. The pack strips down nicely for summit bids. The pack is versatile, carried extremely well, and I am happy with my purchase.
That said there were a couple drawbacks working with Dan. Some of the bumps were my fault.
I believe, for my purposes at least, the pack weight could have been reduced without sacrificing much durability. For example, I inquired about using lighter web and buckles but though Dan did listen he was not willing to compromise. I respect that, but it would have been nice to have on my "custom" pack.
Dan did sort-of add my preferred hydration solution. I carry a platypus hung on toggles on the inside of the pack next to my back. The solution Dan came up with is adequate but not exactly what I requested through conversation and pictures of an existing pack with the toggles. I don't think I could have been clearer on my request without showing him in person. This is a minor disappointment for me.
To Nick or anyone considering a McHale for big loads, definitely go with the double waist buckle. I debated and thought it would be finicky, but it is well worth the extra weight and fuss.
Overall, I'm pleased with my McHale pack.

I think Nick was asking: if there is a 'perfect' pack — then why not just go for it and carry the extra two or three pounds if one's pack weight is still light enough to be always comfortable?

For me, I look at "total pack weight". If a McHale always translates into 'comfort' and if the McHale is still light enough even for my long trips with water — then sure, why not just use the McHale for all my trips? I see nothing wrong with that at all — and plenty of positives in maintaining a simple, uncluttered gear collection.

But for me, I would also ask whether a McHale is even necessary — given my pretty light pack weight anyway? For my week-long, 3-season trips, the answer is "no". There are plenty of lighter, cheaper options that provide all the comfort I need. Obviously, each of us makes our own determination here.

It's never a matter of whether you 'can do it.' It's a matter of which provide more comfort. Considering that the ULA OHM has a frame that provides a noticeable difference in improved comfort over the CDT for only 1.5oz should provide evidence alone.

"It's never a matter of whether you 'can do it.' It's a matter of which provide more comfort."

I see it differently, David. To me, more is not always better, esp. when more comes with its own cost. So, it's not just which provides more comfort — but which provides the comfort (and durability and features) that I need — at the lowest cost in terms of weight and price tag.

Well if you bring in price tag, then we have another discussion to start. ;)

if we're taking about price then we each BPLer wouldnt have 3-4 packs+ … and swap them every 2-3 years

we'd have the mythical "do it all" pack … that would last like 10 years

wait … thats my climbing pack (not 10 years yet, but it does have the Osprey no questions asked warranty)

;)

Another discussion indeed. But just as "comfort" is subjective, so is price actually. Some people won't pay more than $50 while others think $700 is well worth it.

At the end of the day, we all know that the questions can only be answered individually. Neither the 5oz Zpack nor the 5lb McHale will ever be driven out of the market. :)

Indeed.

Tim,

Excellent feedback. Yes, Dan will make a custom pack of his design, structure and materials. So it is not exactly custom.

I cannot speak for Dan, but I suspect that if his name is on the pack, then there are some things he will not change (or compromise). We may own the the pack, but in his mind it is his pack, and it represents him. I suspect that if no one wanted a McHale pack, and everyone wanted a stuff sack with straps, he would just close shop.

I liken this a an architect who designs a custom house. The architect may insist on the design style, and the structure to support it, and refuses to design a house that does not conform to his style and structure. His concern is the livability of the house. The form follows function theory.

In the end, it is up to the buyer. If a buyer does not want what Dan is willing to build, he or she can say no. And if the buyer insists on something, Dan can say no. It is all pretty simple to me.

Dan McHale, to some, may come across as stubborn, opinionated and difficult. I prefer to consider him passionate, experienced and determined.

I have worked with Dan on multiple occasions and would be happy to provide insight and or assistance to BPL members who are considering looking into a McHale pack.