Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Choosing and Using a Frameless Pack

[Addie Bedford]

Companion forum thread to:

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Choosing and Using a Frameless Pack

[Michael L]

I like state of the market reports.

[Jerry Adams]

I'm more into MYOG, but you have good info about fabric, packing, fit,…

For example, my pack usually doesn't extend much above the shoulder attachment but I think it would be better if it was a little smaller diameter and extended a few inches higher, like you said, thanks.

[Dale Wambaugh]

"Think of features in terms of weight and functionality, not art."

I disagree! There's no excuse for functional design that isn't artful– that is what craftsmanship is all about. A well designed and manufactured pack can have the same appeal as any functional object. In fact, I'll bet that those packs that are functional failures probably look the part in use.

[Jeremy Platt]

Thanks a bunch for this, really helpful tips!

[George Matthews]

Thanks for taking on this SOTM 2011. Excellent start and I'm looking forward to the upcoming series.

[Jeremy G]

Will,

The HMG Pack had previously posted it's volume incorrectly on its website and has updated it in the last couple weeks. It is now posted as 2400 for the main compartment plus 600 for the outside pockets for a total of 3000.

Thanks for all your work!

[Francis DeRoos]

Great article and I'm really looking forward to the next few weeks. Curious why the only ULA pack included was the CDT? What about the Ohm and Circuit? Both seem to meet all the criteria and they are often discussed on the forums so an indepth look into these packs would be a great interest to many. Not to nitpick, just curious.

Thanks for all this work.

[David Ure]

The Ohm and Circuit were not included because they are not considered frameless:

"The purpose of the stays is to increase pack stiffness; they do not create an internal frame backpack because the stays are not solidly anchored to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight to the hips."

The frames they use are anchored to the hipbelt.

What is interesting about Will's perspective on this is that my Mchale LBP34 has stayes that are not connected to the hipbelt. Does this make it frameless? ;)

[Nathan Lare]

Thanks for the good information. Has there been a published schedule for the remaining parts of the report? I am getting ready to order a new pack and was curious to see how they were rated.

[Kyle Meyer]

I agree about the Ohm & Circuit—both have as much a removable frame as any of the Gossamer Gear or Six Moon Designs packs. The fact that these aren't even considered in the state of the market when they're so wildly popular is a pretty big oversight or pedantic miscategorization.

"The purpose of the stays is to increase pack stiffness; they do not create an internal frame backpack because the stays are not solidly anchored to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight to the hips."

This report doesn't include some packs with removable stays because those packs use those stays in a more efficient manner? I don't understand the dichotomy between frameless packs with removable stays that are used one way versus another, and think it's silly to exclude a pack like the Ohm because it makes use of a stay too efficiently.

[Michael L]

The circuit was in the internal frame SoTM report. Do you want it in both? I think the Ohm was excluded from that one due to size? Or am I remebering wrong?

[David Ure]

@ Kyle – one has to draw the line somewhere or then the review becomes one of increasing cross over. If you want to read about the Circuit, as Michael indicates, read the SOTM on internal framed packs.

Given that I have the Wind Rider, I completely understand where Will is coming from. It is essentially a frameless pack with minimally stiff stays that provide some back support but no stiffness into the belt.

[Mary D]

I'm also wondering why the very popular ULA Ohm was excluded from both this and the internal frame packs report! If my current pack (2005 version of the SMD Comet) should fall apart (no symptoms yet, fortunately!), the Ohm is the first pack I would look at as a possible replacement.

I realize that you have to draw the line somewhere, but considering how often the Ohm is recommended in this forum, I'm surprised that it wasn't reviewed in one or the other pack category!

[Kyle Meyer]

"Given that I have the Wind Rider, I completely understand where Will is coming from. It is essentially a frameless pack with minimally stiff stays that provide some back support but no stiffness into the belt."

Sounds like there's room for improvement in the design then!

[Thomas Trebisky]

I am baffled by this, and have been for a long time. The past few years I have been doing lightweight trips (a week long, starting at 32 pounds or so, but ending near 20 pounds) with a MLD exodus (which is a great pack). I never use the waist belt, nor do I want to with loads that are this light. Back when I was ignorant and carrying 50+ pounds, using the waist belt gave some relief (or enabled my entire body to suffer equally). Now that I am carrying nominal 25 pound loads I can whistle a tune and carry the pack all day without getting tangled up with a waist belt.

So, all I ask of my packing methodology is that I don't have jabby things jabbing me. I am not on some macho trip, just surprised that so many are enamored of waist belts, is this really so?

[Matthew Black]

I carried 17.4 lbs over the Memorial day weekend in a Swift without waist belt for about 10 hours and found it really comfortable. I got the pack specifically because it is so modular and it seems like it will work great for me. I am uncertain about 25 or more lbs in the pack but it was great below that and I felt much better without the belt.

[Gerald Weigl]

I am missing the Terra Nova Ultra 20 pack here. Now that its available from backpackinglight, it should be included. Thanks!

[Mark Hudson]

I agree, not having the ohm and circuit for whatever reason is simply subjective in your analysis of frame less or not. You show an aluminum "u" which seems to be exactly what is in my ohm regardless of how its anchored.

[David Passey]

I vastly prefer a hipbelt, a wide thin hipbelt. I've resorted to MYOG to get exactly what I want.

For me, the hipbelt is not necessary, but it enhances the trip by making the carry that much better, far more than the offsetting 3-4oz drag associated with adding the belt. I don't cut weight unless it's neutral or enhances the overall experience.

Lighter on the shoulders, snug to the body when moving fast and hopping. All the benefits of a hipbelt applied to a 15 lb pack–a dream to carry.

[Casey Bowden]

+1

I eventually cut the hip belt off of my Gossamer Gear Mariposa since I never used it.

[Matthew Black]

It was Casey who prompted me to try a pack without the waist belt. Works great for me along with stuffing my sleeping bag directly into my pack liner rather than messing with a stuff sack, another Casey tip.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Disclaimer: I'm a confirmed internal stay user.

But… for frameless packs using a hipbelt to attempt to transfer some load I STILL say a CFC mattress cut in half transversely and rolled into two smaller but tight rolls is the way to get a true transfer of load to the hipbelt.

The two CFC rolls would have to have their own sewn-in tubes in the inside of the pack with heavy duty Velcro top flap closures (with a few inches of adjustment in the closures) to force the CFC rolled tubes to stay all the way down in the sewn-in tubes. This would give the necessary stiffness for load transfer.

[Jay Wilkerson]

Great article and plenty of info..Perfect timing I am in the market/hunt for a new UL pack. SMD Swift or MLD Exodus???????

Cheers

[BlackHatGuy]

I'd get the Prophet before the Exodus, unless you want a bigger pack. You can get an awful lot of stuff in a Prophet!

[Author]

Posts