Tough but light backpack?

In case you haven’t seen the pack up close and personal; Osprey uses an unusually heavy mesh for their hip pockets, much more than any side-panel water bottle pockets. I do agree with you though, but not on the basis of durability. I don’t like all the dust (I live in the SW), and potentially water, that can freely pass through the mesh to threaten your camera and contaminate your half eaten snickers bar.

Jay
BPL

Macpac 35 Amp has tough mesh pockets. I Love them. Mounted on bungees on your belly they don’t interfere with my thighs when stepping up like most hipbelt mounted pockets. Review to be published soon.

Ryan–do you have any new news on the Rapture
Pack and it’s larger sibling ? Shipping dates ? Anxious minds need to know !

This pack looks really interesting. I was considering the Mariposa (really liked the design) but was worried about durrability when going off-trail.

Doug

as long as you’re above treeline, off trail is not a problme. You just need to be a little more careful with this pack. I love mine and the workmanship is superb.

We don’t have any above-tree line here.

Doug

Hello Paul,

I use the Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone. I do a lot of scrambling with sandstone slickrock and off trail terrain (under juniper, between them, through thick brush, etc.). I hike and backpacking extensively in the Black Ridge Wilderness near the Utah Colorado border. The pack weighs about three pounds and takes a lot of abuse. I do have a Gossamer Gear Mariposa and GoLite Speed but I avoid taking them on these rough terrain trips. Sandstone really grinds materials fast! The Granite Gear pack can be used to carry 30lb loads with total comfort.

what is the latest on the Rapture?

when Can I buy it and for how much?

also I am curious of the rapture weight with out the stays, the larger pack was pictured with a pad pocket, is it the same on the rapture?

Thanks

Hey Jon! Ryan may be the first company to actually fully copy my 13 year lead of using double buckles on a hip belt. Many companies have been beating around the bush on that and doing half A versions. As you know, I’m supposed to be flattered

It may help to add that we replaced that problematic spectra pack immediately.

The seriously ultralight folks, the real freaks, might just think that 2 buckles on a hip-belt are over the top. One would work just fine. An extra buckle is a buckle that needs to be cut off.

Mr. McHale,

can you please elaborate on precisely how the two-buckle arrangement functions as a component of the suspension? it seems that it provides some versatility related to how the hip-belt rides on the pelvis? i think i’m missing most of the “genius” of the idea however. or, is it like the old scotsman says, “it’s better felt than telt”? can you describe the advantages of it over the traditional one-buckle system? if you decided to patent the idea, a patent number would suffice as the patent description and its claims would answer my questions also. thirteen yrs: if you did patent it, congrats and it still has another four yrs.

Robert,

i understand the point that you are making. remove whatever is unecessary or appears to be redundant as a weight savings measure.

from your post, i gather that you don’t feel this way. it seems that you’re just saying someone else might glance quickly at a two-buckle design and dismiss it as nothing but redundancy.

in this case, i believe that it is only an appearance of redundancy. a purpose is actually served by the twin buckles…

if anyone hasn’t seen Dan McHale’s fine packs (arguably the best made packs in the world from what i gather from reading the comments of true experts who own his packs), check them out at McHale Packs

i’m guessing here and am probably missing the most important aspects of the two-buckle design, they seem to provide a means of differentially tightening the belt’s top vs. the belt’s bottom. this would seem to provide, at the very least, a more secure “connection” of the belt with the wearer’s pelvis, and more comfort. for the somewhat heavier (sometimes non-L/UL) loads that these packs are designed to carry. this would seem to be a very good idea.

i believe, i could be mistaken, i’m guessing here, that some mainstream non-L/UL pack Mfr’s/designers, whose packs i’ve seen, have tried to copy Mr. McHale’s idea by using two “runners” of lesser width grosgrain sewn on top of the main belt. these runners run back along the top of the main webbing from an area near the hip-belt’s main large single buckle to their own additonal adjusting buckles located on the padded portion of the hip-belt. these tension adjustment buckles (they do NOT hold the hip-belt on the wearer) provide only a “poorer” means (as cp. to Dan’s idea) of differentially adjusting the belt’s tension. some other pack’s i’ve seen sew at angles, starting much further away from the main buckle than the first method, shorter grosgrain to the main hip-belt webbing. these too return to tension adjusting buckles on the padded portion of the hip-belt. don’t misunderstand my poor description, what i’m speaking of here are NOT the common forward pulling adjustments, generally found further towards the rear of the hip-belt, that pull the pack bag bottom towards the wearer’s back – these “adjusters” are found on many mainstream non-L/UL packs. nor, am i speaking of the “Scherer” cinch design used by some Kelty packs.

to my largely uninformed mind, both of these arrangements seem, for a number of reasons that immediately come to mind, to be inferior to Dan’s design.

i could also imagine that a hip-belt could be designed such that with proper (even equal) tensioning of the twin-buckles afixed to top and bottom of the hip-belt, would cause the center of the hip-belt to flex/bulge inward causing it to ride more securely on the iliac crest. not sure that this is how it’s intended to function – just making wild guesses here. there has to be (a) good reason(s) for the design, or Mr. McHale would not have used it.

Mr. McHale, if i’ve misunderstood the intent of your two-buckle design or left out other advantages to it (undoubtedly), feel free to post and set me straight, and educate us about the nuances of your fine design – you’ll get no argument from me.

also, one might argue that two smaller buckles and their associated webbing, actually weighs less than one larger buckle with wider webbing. while this, to my mind, is insignificant for the McHale packs, given their non-UL design parameters/goals and greater empty pack weight, it might be used together with a a number of other weight savings measures for a L/UL 15oz pack like BMW is bringing out. i’ve read that, in the L/UL world, webbing is one of the heavier materials used.

Paul – I was serious – not being sarcastic. ‘freak’ is a positive term these days – and, I guess I’m one. I think that for ultralight loads say 19 lbs or so, I wouldn’t want the 2 straps because packs I have with single buckles work fine with light loads. Sometimes I like to get the pack off quick too.

Robert,

understood.

If by what you mean by genius is the core premise, you got it pretty much in your long post here. It’s pretty basic stuff. I pretty much forgot, but didn’t Ryan drop the pack project?

Mr. McHale,

>>”Basic stuff”
Perhaps, to you Sir. Not so to me. If I got any of it correct, it was b/c it (the “genius”) was already in your design. I only had to try to reason it out. In a good design, there must be a purpose for everything. By all accounts yours are great designs. Knowing this, made it easier to deduce.

>>”pack project”
Have no idea about the pack project. Last I heard Brian Frankle of ULA was going to be making the packs. There was a Thread, some time ago (2-3??? months ago), in which Dr. J mentions this. I remember it clearly, b/c I replied to Dr. J’s Post (as did a number of others).

I would imagine there was a problem getting the various spectra fabrics that were described by Ryan. Been a spectra drought.

I can’t remember the incentives that prompted me to start using 2 buckles. I do remember working with stiffeners to simulate the effect of 2 buckles but a belt needed to flex right there in front so…… That was overshadowed by my far more important Bypass Harness invention – it’s got about 4 years to go on the patent. The 2 ‘systems’ came about within 2 weeks of each other. The planets must have been aligned!

Mr. McHale,

A much belated congrats on the patents. If you have the time (even if its weeks/months) from now, could you please describe the “ByPass Harness” design/invention and its advantages. I’m going to check out your website for info on it, but it sure would also be handy to have a description here for others to read. Many thanks.

Go here: http://www.mchalepacks.com/sarc/04.htm.
It’s in the Sarc Series Information on the sight. I have a patent on the bayonet system also but the Bypass was very cool to come up with. I don’t think it would have come about if I did not try to teach maybe thousands of people to use the regular system effectively, and fail. Having gone through the motions of adjustment for myself and many others created this bypass of the conflict in the other system. I was coming down from Mt. Daniel in the Cascades one day and said to myself I was going to think about it really hard for a few minutes and I ran the problem and the solution was seeing that the 2 adjustments that were in conflict in the tug of war had to have their own lives and pass each other in the same space. I could not wait to get home and try it!

Mr. McHale, Many thanks for the swift reply. I’m going to go right to the webpage/URL you mentioned in your post. Have a good night. I’m off to work soon.

---

Had to return to edit this Post. Just read your webpage. GENIUS!!! PURE, UNADULTERATED GENUIS. Sounds great. Before going L/UL. Kelty packs were my favorite. Excellent value (cost vs. performance). My last one was a Satori. Loved that pack, so comfortable. Personally, I found the traditional system fine. Use the load lifters to just lift the shoulder straps ~1/4″ of an inch off the shoulders while pulling the pack top closer to the back. For me, this transfers the wt. to my pelvis – where i like to carry as much wt as possible IF the hip-belt is well padded (45-55lb loads in those days) – which the Kelty pack hip-belts were. You’re so right, once doing that, if you loosen the shoulder straps, then it’s another load lifter adjustment – back-and-forth to get it right; more work than is necessary. i just accepted it as a fact of life. glad you didn’t accept it.

However, you are so right. I too, over the years, have talked to and helped dozens (no where near your thousands) learn how to adjust their packs properly. I gotta’ tell you, i was floored as i read your webpage. It was like an epiphany just reading it. I can only imagine how you felt when you reasoned out the idea there on your descent. Great idea. I believe that it works just as well as you described it. It certainly embodies the K.I.S.S. principle of design “Keep It Short and Simple”. You certainly hit the nail on the head.

Thanks for the appreciation!

A funny thing happened when I tested the first prototype of the harness; my hands wanted to keep going through all of the old motions. THAT was interesting.

>>all of the old motions.”

yes. we all are certainly creatures of habit.

Yes, as Dan mentioned, we are nixing the pack project. That decision came about last week. For a variety of reasons,

1. Carbon fiber, even in a nice strong, shaped stay, breaks, cracks, fatigues. It’s not durable enough for meaningful loads on long trips. The alternative is 7000 series aluminum, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s still the best material out there for pack frames.

2. Spectra fabric availability was ok, but not great. We experimented with fiber-reinforced film fabrics as well as woven spectra and the former were very puncture prone in a pack application.

Basically, it came down to this.

I have a dozen BMW internal frame prototype packs sitting around. With a few exceptions (trips to test a BMW pack), and with the exception of the SUL weekend trips I’ve been doing this year, where I’ve taken a hipbeltless frameless rucksack, I’ve groaned whenever I grabbed my BMW packs. They were good, but not great. Whenever I had one of my McHale packs with me, I was pretty happy. They fit, they work, and more important, Dan worked with me to customize a piece of gear that fit into what I wanted to get out of the backcountry experience.

Short story: there are good enough packs out there, especially including McHales, which are my personal favorites because they are made for me and I have found nothing, including any BMW prototype, that works better.

If further innovation is not required to improve a piece of gear to perform better, then I’m not sure what the point is.

We will continue the ‘rucksack’ simple packs, like the G6 and another one we’re working on that is a little bigger, more durable, and has a simple hip belt.

But if you want an internal frame pack for carrying meaningful loads, you won’t find it coming from BMW.

Oh, well. I was looking forward to at least see if something promising was going to be unveiled before my next round of pack purchases. But, you know, even in UL land, we still have a lot of choices. My next UL frame supported pack will come from the Gossamer Gear, ULA, MLD, 6 Moons axis of cottage manufacturers. No worries.

Maybe Ryan/BMW can focus on all the hinted Nano and Vapor Barrier goods.

DrJ, thanks for the update. If you get a chance, can you enlighten us a bit futher, please.

1) Your lightest McHale’s pack, what is it’s weight?

2) At what pack weight do you switch from [which preferred pack – a G6???] to your “lightest” duty McHale’s pack.

I think you can figure out what i’m trying to ask. You are all about light, but at the right price/risk associated with your planned trek. A McHale pack is NOT the lightest, so there have to be other driving factors in your selection of a McHale pack for a particular endeavor/trek.

So, at what point, load pack weight, and/or trek-duration do you switch to a heavier, more robust, more comfortable, McHale Pack? Oh…and what model and customizations, if any?