Home › Forums › Campfire › Editor’s Roundtable › Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011
Part 2A – Technical Evaluation – Measurement of Pack Volume and Volume Reduction Capability
Jun 14, 2011 at 1:48 pm #1275434
@addiebedfordLocale: MontanaJun 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm #1749270
@robertm2sLocale: Lake Tahoe
in light backback technology!Jun 14, 2011 at 9:44 pm #1749379
"in light backback technology!"
Or graph building.Jun 15, 2011 at 6:18 am #1749464
It's a pity that adventure racing packs were excluded. In fact there are not so many places in internet about adventure racing (as i can see – nothing like BPL). But i think AR gear can be very effective (and for UL backpacking too), because it is tested in most rigourous conditions. It would be great to see BPL reviews.
p.s. And I wonder – which packs could be added in such case? Inov-8, terra-nova, what else?Jun 15, 2011 at 10:06 am #1749549
I hope the Gossamer Gear Murmur is included in future installments.
That is the UL crown jewel of the GG line, in my opinion.Jun 15, 2011 at 1:52 pm #1749663
@thefatboyLocale: St. Louis
The SMD Traveler is intended to be used with a CCF pad stuffed in the back panel. I'm assuming the volume & compression ratio numbers above were determined/calculated without the pad. How much would the addition of a pad sway these numbers? If the pad were a standard 3/4 length Z-Lite (folded to 11"x20"x3"), it would suck up 660 cubic inches, putting the Travelers volume at 3505/2790/1850 (total/main/compressed), resulting in a compression ratio of 33.7%.
I suppose this line of thought can be applied to any of these packs as many intend for a pad to be used inside as support in some manner, but with the Travelers pad-dependent design, these extra numbers seem particularly relevant. Personally, if I end up with a Traveler (on my short list), I would rather not use a CCF pad, so I'm watching closely how well it fares in these tests.Jun 15, 2011 at 6:37 pm #1749775
Will, Janet, Roger, can't wait for the next installment.
The graph-making was Roger's contribution, according to Wills notes.
It would be nice to address UL packs that can handle a bear canister as well. Many packs are just bearly big enough (no pun intended) and turn into a cylinder when you drop the can in, which is not comfortable against the back.Jun 17, 2011 at 12:22 pm #1750412
@ryan_hutchinsLocale: Somewhere out there
Awesome.Jun 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm #1751860
@williwabbitLocale: Southwest Colorado
Hi all, thanks for the comments and kudos. Roger helped me with Figures 2 and 3; we needed to trick MS Excel a bit to do it. Lots of graphs in Part 2B coming up.
Re the SMD Traveler pack, we decided to measure volume of all packs without a CCF pad so data are comparable. Thanks for the calculations of the volume that would be taken up by a CCF pad.
Happy hiking, WillAug 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm #1771787
@taedawoodLocale: Louisiana, USA
Whereas the Mountain Laurel Designs Exodus Pack volume was dramatically larger than stated by the manufacturer, did you happen to measure the Prophet pack's actual vs stated volume? I am curious if it too is significantly larger or if it is close to the stated volume?Sep 23, 2011 at 4:23 pm #1782773
You say "the Gorilla has two side compression straps plus a front bungie system, the Mariposa Plus has only a front bungie system."
You can also rearrange the bungie cord on either pack to give you side compression. That's how I have my mariposa rigged. I like having bungies on both sides much better than a single front bungie.
I don't know how much of a difference it would make in your measurements. For me it provides all the compression I need.
Great series of articles. Thanks!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.