ZPacks Dyneema X 26 Backpack Review
- This topic is empty.
Jul 19, 2011 at 3:01 pm #1276936Addie BedfordBPL Member
Companion forum thread to:Jul 19, 2011 at 6:16 pm #1761027Daniel AllenBPL Member
@dan_quixoteLocale: below the mountains (AK)
"Use side compression straps, rather than elastic cords, to better compress the pack"
What if, instead of 'straps', Joe used inelastic cordage, like his z-line or another cord typically used for guylines?
That way, it wouldn't stretch, but would still be sublimely light and take exactly the same amount of work in making the pack. Also, it's mod anybody could do at home.
I'm looking at this pack and thinking that the extra volume would be fine if it had the wrap-around compression options that modern Golite Jams have; what if the guyline cord was strung through the back mesh, though, so the pocket could be filled and accessed even while the main body of the pack was thoroughly compressed on three sides? I haven't many miles of experience with UL packs yet, but that designs seems like money to me.Jul 19, 2011 at 8:33 pm #1761079Warren GreerSpectator
Will, glad to read in more detail about this pack. It seems you've made some good suggestions to advance this pack. I'm surprised that the carbon rods don't do much for pack collapse. That's the thing that bothers me most about going to a very light pack.
edit: I definitely admire many of Joe's creations and will finally end up with some of his gear some day.Jul 19, 2011 at 10:54 pm #1761122Jeremy PlattBPL Member
I have a blast 26 with inelastic compression straps which worked really well until I decided to switch to the'cloud method' endorsed by Mike C. Joe did not charge me any extra for this, I just had to ask. Joe will do just about anything to keep his customers happy.Jul 20, 2011 at 7:18 am #1761176Jarod FlemingMember
@flemdawg1Locale: SE US
Did you get a measured volume for the Blast/Dyneema X 20? 54L is alot more pack than I need.Jul 21, 2011 at 8:09 am #1761583Johan WestringBPL Member
It looks like a great pack. Both of the cons seems like a non issue. With inelastic/elastic cordage on the sides you can be much more flexible backpack. I prefer using cordage that runs from the top to bottom and goes inside the lower pocket. That stabilizes the pack and pushes the center of gravity closer to your back. It will make the backpack feel much lighter.Jul 22, 2011 at 10:40 pm #1762244JASON CUZZETTOBPL Member
@cuzzettjLocale: NorCal - South Bay
Just playing Devil' advocate here… Too many features on your pack maybe?
A quick clarification. I think, had the pad been used as the frame, you wouldn't have had as many issues with the volume? What do you think? Honestly I want one of his packs and the pad as the frame is my go to method. The benefits seem to out-way the issues. But my son loves his pack that has the same features.
Thanks for the great article. It got me thinking.Jul 23, 2011 at 10:03 am #1762329Dan DurstonBPL Member
@dandydanLocale: Canadian Rockies
Thanks for the review. These packs are pretty fully featured. I think a lot of people would be better off building up one of Joe's size Medium Zero packs instead (same basic pack) and adding the features they want. This way you don't get features you don't want, and you can opt for a dry bag style roll top to easily reduce volume.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.