Dec 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm #1282958
Just received my HMG Porter pack and I am most impressed.
-stiff but shaped stays.
-wide belt integrated with belt straps to suck the lumbar in nice and tight.
-excellent padding in the shoulder harness and belt.
-many attachment points for misc pockets, etc.Dec 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm #1811380
…but how well it carries :D
btw do the stays come preshaped?Dec 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm #1811801
Can you comment at all about the sizing/torso length? I read someone say that HMG packs run a bit big compared to the stated torso sizes.
I had been thinking about selling my mountaineering bag (Gregory Makalu Pro, 69L, 5 lb, 9 oz (10 oz heavier than Gregory claims)) and picking up a Cilogear 60L worksack when I saw the HMG porter. My head turned sideways and something in my brain made a bad noise because it seemed too good to be true.
A 55L bag that weighs 27 oz might not seem special for many purposes, but if it's durable enough for mountaineering and can actually carry 45-50 lbs, I have not seen anything close, especially for the price.
Now if someone would just buy my Gregory…Dec 13, 2011 at 5:24 pm #1811810
Never been a fan of the roll top. I wonder if a pocket lid could be attached?
I like the ability of storing stuff under the flap, rope, rain shell, you name it.Dec 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm #1811811
Stays are preshaped.
Sizing – measured the BPL way the L torso length is 19.5 inches. I'd say the sizing is fairly correct.
Weight – the listed weight on the site is without stays. My size L porter is 32 oz with the stays in.
Lid – you could definitely add a removable lid with a little ingenuity.Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 pm #1811816
What Cilogear 60L are you comparing it to? The regular or one of the NWD? The fabric HMG uses is tough, but I don't think it compares to the simliar Cilogear fabric. Cilogear is definitely better built for mountain abuse…Dec 13, 2011 at 8:05 pm #1811848
I have a first model Windrider, and after using it as my daypack on Kilimanjaro, it's become my goto commuter pack. I've been biking with it all over the Seattle area for close to 8 months now, and that includes carrying two cameras + light stand, umbrella, strobe & battery pack, and a few other miscellaneous items now and then. It's kept my gear dry in spite of some intense storms, and it's still holding up.
It shows more wear than my 4-year old McHale, which other than being dirty, doesn't look like it's seen any use at all, even though it's my expedition pack, which I take on all of my day hikes as well as backpacks, because of the photo gear.
Considering that the Windrider has had quite a bit of use, and I'm comparing to a full Dyneema custom pack that cost almost $1000 more than the Windrider, I think that speaks well of the Windrider.Dec 13, 2011 at 8:32 pm #1811857
rakesh… you know… you just made me lust for a mchale pack even more…Dec 13, 2011 at 9:15 pm #1811873
Sorry for the late reply. My camera is charging so pics shortly.
Yes, the stays are pre-bent but you could bend them more if required.
I can't see a top flap being retrofitted to the roll top but HMG may be able to do a custom job for you (?).
The torso length in Large fits me perfectly at a 19.5" torso. I would say the torso sizes offered are essentially spot on. The stay length on the Large is 22.34".
The fabric is very thick looks very abrasion resistant. I suspect either Chris or Ryan J can add some perspective here from their use of prototypes of the Porter.
So far the limited carry has been exceptional at 30lbs (for testing sake at this point). The belt is very wide and the additional tensioning straps at the back of the belt really help to stabilize the load. No belt slip for me (a pet peeve with some packs). I should also add that the shoulder straps (padded portion) are decenlty long. Comfy for this type of pack.
I did manage to weigh the Large with the two stays and it came to 1lb, 14.4 oz. Hey Chris – I got a light one!Dec 14, 2011 at 3:31 am #1811935
"I did manage to weigh the Large with the two stays and it came to 1lb, 14.4 oz. Hey Chris – I got a light one!"
Haha. You did! In all fairness though I have prototype stays. I'd expect that yours is closer to a real production weight.
I've been sliding around on talus a fair bit with an earlier proto and noticed no wear.
In regards to weight carry, I know Ryan has had 40+ in his and claims it was quite comfortable (as comfortable as 40 lbs on your back can be anyway).Dec 14, 2011 at 5:43 am #1811952
"In regards to weight carry, I know Ryan has had 40+ in his and claims it was quite comfortable (as comfortable as 40 lbs on your back can be anyway)."
A 2 pound pack that can carry 40+ is my idea of the perfect all around pack. Right now my Absaroka fills this niche nicely but I don't think the fabric will last forever. I think the seams are the weak point (although they've held up for 400 or so miles). Do you think the Porter seams would hold up over the long term or do you think they'd weaken over time?
I'm also curious how the stays attach to the hipbelt are they just in a sleave like other frameless packs with added stays?Dec 14, 2011 at 8:26 am #1811989
"Do you think the Porter seams would hold up over the long term or do you think they'd weaken over time? I'm also curious how the stays attach to the hipbelt are they just in a sleave like other frameless packs with added stays?"
The construction looks very good. The seems look tight and strong. I guess time will tell, but for a sub 2 lb pack with considerable load carrying ability….
Yes, the hipbelt attaches to the same place where the stays sit in their sleeves. The rear stabilizer straps on the belt suck the stays into the lower back. Nice.Dec 14, 2011 at 9:11 am #1812019
I was looking at the regular worksack, not the NWD version. I can't afford an $800 pack at this point. I thought the cuben/silnylon thing that HMG does was pretty flippin' durable?
I also emailed Mike from HMG and he said he could put the crampon/tool patch from the Ice Pack onto the Porter.
Anyone else have thoughts about how the porter compares to a cilogear 60L worksack for mountaineering?Dec 14, 2011 at 10:03 am #1812054
Thanks David, maybe at some point I'll get a Porter.
I really would like to see a review of this pack by BPL soon. A sub 2 pound pack with that load bearing ability and that much space is really something special, epsecially if its pretty rugged.Dec 14, 2011 at 10:31 am #1812078
Coming soon. We were hoping to have it published already but RJ got hit with a bad case of the flu.Dec 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm #1812236
Thats great to hear Chris. Hope RJ gets over that flu before Christmas. I don't know of a lot of packs that can handle 45 pounds that weight less than 4 pounds. A pack that can do that while being light enough to us for weekend trips with UL gear is a great value. Also great for thru-hiking since you can occassionally load up for long sections between resupplies, or water.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.