Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 pm #1280882
Just picked up a new Jam and had a question about the included pad that is in the sleeve for support. Can I remove it and just use my Ridgerest which I bring anyway? I don't know if I will lose any support by removing it? I was thinking of putting the Ridgerest in a big circle and filling the pack up in the middle, will this work?Oct 20, 2011 at 5:20 am #1792874
@cameronLocale: Idaho Falls
I would leave the pad in. It used to be very common to take them out to save a few ounces but according to recent test they do imprve the carrying ablitity. Rolling your sleeping bad up works but according to the same tests it works best to fold your pad up against the back.Oct 20, 2011 at 6:30 am #1792885
Give it a shot! If it works for the load you carry, then you found an easy way to save an ounce or two, if not, you can add it back for the next trip.
-DavidOct 20, 2011 at 6:40 am #1792886
If you're asking about removing the sleeve itself, I did and regretted it after. It doesn't save much weight. Also, if you ever want to use the pack for travel (where you are not taking the ridgerest) you'll be glad you have it.Oct 20, 2011 at 7:24 am #1792902
@davecLocale: Crown of the Continent
A full pad sleeve with a tight fitting pad definitely enhances load carry.Oct 20, 2011 at 7:34 am #1792908
"A full pad sleeve with a tight fitting pad definitely enhances load carry."
I agree completely, but depending on the weight and composition of the load the added enhancement over a Ridgerest may not be needed, hence my suggestion to Kevin to give it a shot and see if it works for him.
-DavidOct 20, 2011 at 8:25 am #1792930
I have had several Jams and the pad not required. I had great luck with a Ridgerest in two configurations. First is folded flat. Second is scoring it into a U shape. I would do the first if I were to carry a Jam again and keep my quilt loose to make sure you fill out your pack. If your base weight is in the 12lb range this works well.Oct 20, 2011 at 8:55 am #1792946
I replaced mine with a pad cut from a blue CCF pad, and that helped. Cutting a piece of coroplast to fit in with the pad helps a lot. But if you can replace it with the ridgerest, that would be the way to go. Never tried it myself.Oct 20, 2011 at 9:42 am #1792967
No, I wouldn't cut the sleeve out. Sometimes I use my Exped UL7 and I will leave the pad in but when I take the Ridgerest I was thinking I could take it out and put the Ridgerest in a circular shape around the inside of the pack for support. My base weight is right around 10 lbs.Oct 20, 2011 at 10:48 am #1792997
I would buy a pack that works. Why dump money into a design that needs adaptation (and is still a load of compromises)? There are plenty of UL pack makers out there who have good designs that will incorporate your sleeping pad or have some sort of weight transfer frame sheet, stays or frame that will do the trick– without being chopped up. If want the weight savings of a frameless pack, you might as well get one that is actually UL and well designed.
I'm of the mind that you get a truly ultralight pack and learn how to pack it properly– and live with the compromises– or get a framed pack that will deliver good weigh transfer without doing a Houdini trick to get it loaded. These in-between designs with added padding, pockets, straps and weight are just a waste of time and effort. GoLite started by making very Spartan and truly UL packs and kept adding padding, compression straps, pockets, and heavier fabric. I assume that was to appease the mass market retailers. The cottage makers still rule the nest on the UL packs. If you can access the article at http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/frameless_backpacks_sotm_part1_2011.html it will help you sort it out.
I got tired of the fiddling and my pack loading being dictated by creating weight transfer rather than convenient access to gear on the trail and balance. Droopy packs and stuff poking me in the back didn't cut it for me. I went to an actual framed pack (Osprey Exos) that I can load any way I like and get true weight transfer and a stable comfortable load.Oct 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm #1793054
@erdferkelLocale: S. California
You can remove it and try doing the 'sleeping pad unrolled inside the pack trick.' But I leave mine in since i use a GG thinlite pad with a torsolite and when it's a bit cold under the legs the 1/4" foam in the pack is a good supplement. The real trick to that pack (and other frameless packs) is to pack it so that it supports itself. I use two silnylon drybags to hold the sleeping bag and warm clothes, both stuffed vertically in the bottom.Oct 20, 2011 at 11:59 pm #1793305
You seem to know it all, I will be sure to send you a PM when ever I have a question. I have used and own many types of packs. The Golite fits me perfect and is the most comfortable pack I own. If you read my post I am going to be using the Ridgerest next week and was wondering if I could simply take out the foam pad with this set up. You sound like a bitter old man.Oct 21, 2011 at 12:56 am #1793313
Whoah there Sonny, I just gave my opinion. I've owned a Jam (and several other GoLite packs) and didn't care for it. It fit just fine, but the suspension sucked, ego my little rant. I haven't looked at the new ones, but if you can remove the pad non-destructively, what is all the drama about? Pull the thing out and try it with the RidgeRest. I'm sure several folded layers of RidgeRest will give you a stiffer column than the single foam pad.
The caveat is that the RidgeRest won't be captive in a pocket where it picks up weight off the shoulder strap connection and transfers it down to the waist belt, although a single layer of CCF foam isn't going to transfer much weigh before drooping. Careful loading is the trick. A stiffer frame sheet or stays would be the real answer.
No need to get personal or defensive when you get free advice that isn't derogatory towards you. If you don't like my advice, don't follow it! It's a forum, where people *discuss* things. My HUMBLE opinion is that frameless packs suck big time :) Best of luck with your experiments!Oct 21, 2011 at 8:02 am #1793386
I'll go the other way and suggest trying to *add* a section of Ridgerest/Zrest pad cut to the same dimensions as the stock pad. Using both pads seemed to firm up the support in my Pinnacle pack and made it carry the load better. Oh, and I kept the stock pad against my back.
Yes, that adds a few ounces, so if you don't need to, don't do it, but if you have to carry weight anywhere even close to its supposed capacity of the pack it makes it much more comfortable.Oct 21, 2011 at 9:35 am #1793420
Thanks for all the advice, it actually works great for me with the stock pad but I will give it a shot with the Ridgerest next weekend in the Canyon. With my base weight right at 10 lbs I doubt if I notice a difference either way.Oct 21, 2011 at 9:46 am #1793423
Read your response again, I was simply asking about removing a piece of foam or not? And yes, I was asking for free advice, just not your opinion on why I bought the wrong pack. Keep on topic and to the point.
"I would buy a pack that works. Why dump money into a design that needs adaptation (and is still a load of compromises)? There are plenty of UL pack makers out there who have good designs that will incorporate your sleeping pad or have some sort of weight transfer frame sheet, stays or frame that will do the trick– without being chopped up. If want the weight savings of a frameless pack, you might as well get one that is actually UL and well designed."
I didn't ask you for the opinion above, I personally think this pack is a perfect balance for me. I guess I wasn't thinking how it would fit you when I bought the pack. I am sorry to all of the other posters but this guy struck a nerve, this is the main reason why I started coming over to this board from Backpacker.com. I don't want to be preached to and told I bought the wrong pack.Oct 21, 2011 at 9:54 am #1793429
Kevin harped, "I didn't ask you for the opinion above, I personally think this pack is a perfect balance for me. I guess I wasn't thinking how it would fit you when I bought the pack. I am sorry to all of the other posters but this guy struck a nerve, this is the main reason why I started coming over to this board from Backpacker.com"
Wow, that's quite an attitude. I have the perfect match for your attitude and your pack padding issues:
Oct 21, 2011 at 10:01 am #1793430
I love it! Multi-use gear!Oct 21, 2011 at 10:04 am #1793433
In this case, it could double as a balaclava.Oct 21, 2011 at 10:23 am #1793440
Dale, you even give advice on your PDF gear list, you don't get it do you! And quit posting pictures of gear you use to avoid getting out of your bag at nights!
All fun aside, you do seem to know quite a bit so I do apologize. I just bought the pack and am very happy with it. Seemed like you were telling me that I wasted my money on it.Oct 21, 2011 at 10:47 am #1793450
Kevin, to get to the gist of it, your original question shows a general lack of initiative and willingness to experiment. The nature of the question tells me that you don't have the wherewithal to load a frameless pack properly once you get past the rather simple problem of pulling the pad out and putting the folded RidgeRest in. It seems you had to bring it to the forum to validate it before just trying it on your own. I wonder how you will do in the backcountry (or life) if you can't work through such simple things with your gear.
In other words, it was a dumbass question in the first place.Oct 21, 2011 at 11:05 am #1793460
Sorry for asking such a dumb ass question. But I won't have a chance to use the pad until next Thursday, doing a rim to rim in the canyon and was asking other users of the Jam their thoughts to try and lighten my load a little. You win, I give up. And I am also guessing you are not in the corporate world using language like dumbass in a public forum. The moderator needs to calm you down.Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm #1793489
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Whoa, guys! Cool it down already. You're just talking about a pack, fer cryin' out loud. Kevin, Dale is a very long time, respected member here. He really does know what he is talking about. This is the first time I've seen him get snappy about anything, so I'm surprised. Dale, it's obvious Kevin is still somewhat new to UL; he didn't even know what to call the CF pad cylinder. Perhaps allowing him to become familiar with what us longer term UL'ers now take for granted will eventually have him talking as smoothly about all this as we do? Remember when we cantankerous old farts didn't even know what silnylon was? (and I always spelled it "slynylon") now we're even eating the stuff for breakfast and wearing it as a fashion statement!Oct 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm #1793499
I think Kevin overreacted to Dale's 1st post, and I can understand Dale's reaction to that. However, it makes me uneasy that Dale then seems to imply that Kevin is wrong to post a naive or inexperienced question. Is BPL to be only for initiates, or can us newbies ask help from the more experienced members, even if our questions come across as "dumbass" to those who know the answers?
Edit: Isn't it great how BPL's filter allows words like dumbass, but not g*y?Oct 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm #1793511
I didn't even go there until the personal things like "you sound like a bitter old man" came into the fray. I gave some advice he didn't like and was attacked for it, and that is WRONG. If he doesn't like my opinion I have no issue with that, but to go off on me for offering an alternate view of the issue is destructive to the forum concept. I wasn't at all derogatory in my initial response, just bringing my experience with frameless packs to the table. You have never seen me jump anyone outright for the quality of their questions and I've gently pointed a lot of newbies to information to get them on the right foot. I don't think I should get flamed because I point out that it might be the product that is the problem and his approach was trying to make a poor design work rather than taking it back and finding a more suitable product and WHY. His question was so elementally flawed that I assumed he did not grasp the concepts of weight transfer and loading frameless packs. Rest assured, he has left me NO DOUBT at this point!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.