Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

[Addie Bedford]

Companion forum thread to:

Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

[Ken Thompson]

"Ultralight backpackers have developed an unquenchable fetish for packs that are measured in ounces, seemingly with no regard at all to what the pack has offered with respect to durability, comfort, or aesthetic design."

Blanket statements are never good. I will be waiting to see how well this pack does. As I am in the market for a larger pack.

[Ryan Jordan]

Good catch, Ken :)

[David Chenault]

Those packs look good. If ya'll could post up the dimensions (depth, width, height) I'd appreciate it. Those give me a better sense of size than cubic inches.

[David Ure]

I am loving my Porter!

[Gabe Grayum]

Under 'Specifications'
BPL Calculated Volume: TBD

Under 'Similar Packs'
BPL Measured Volume: 3400 cu in (55 L)

Has the volume been measured or not? This is one of the things I've been wondering about regarding these packs.

[CW]

Height: ~39 inches (bottom of lumbar/belt to bottom of velcro)
Circumference: ~33 inches
Width: ~10.75 inches (across back panel)
Depth: ~5.75 inches (across a side at top compression strap)

FWIW, the pack is tapered (wider at top).

[Richard Scruggs]

Gabe, re your question: "Has the volume been measured or not?"

From the article, below the table containing the data categories you cite:

"During this review period, we'll be publishing data that justifies the performance of this pack, and filling in the table above."

[Roleigh Martin]

I emailed Hyperlite about their Expedition pack and was very much dismayed it does not come, nor can it be ordered, to include load lifters. I dislike having any weight of the pack on my shoulders and depend on load lifters to keep the weight off my shoulders. I want the weight carried by the frame attached to the belt plus a small amount by the Chest Sternum (about 2-3 percent of the weight).

[David Chenault]

Thanks Chris. I'm assuming those are the Porter dimensions. Quite narrow at less than 6 inches deep. Presumably that Expedition is fatter in this respect.

Can I have too many packs. No, I cannot.

[David Ure]

Hi Roleigh – a quick call to Mike @HMG might help.

Regarding the load lifters – the should harness attaches at the top of the stays so one would simply order the pack with slightly longer stays that sit slightly above the shoulder crest. This is the same way that one would order a Mchale using the simple (not the P&G) harness.

[CW]

Dave – yeah, that's for my Porter. I'd have to measure again, but I'm pretty sure it gets larger as you travel up the extension collar. Of course it's hard to measure a width/depth there since it has no structure. They are definitely built in a more narrow but tall profile though.

IMO – load lifters would be useless with this design, because as David Ure mentioned the straps attach to the top of the pack and the stays extend to that point. Load lifters would require a taller back panel so that the shoulder straps attach a few inches below the top of the pack. Then the load lifters could extend to the top of the pack with the stays. As-is, I've had no problems with transferring weight fully to the hip belt. With that said, I haven't carried as much weight in mine as Ryan has.

[Hamish McHamish]

The tone of the preface sure sounds snarky. The passive-aggressive slant detracts from the article's objectivity.

[D G]

Is the volume spec overstated?
5.75 x 10.75 x 39 = 2410 cubic inches to the very top of the rolltop closure, and of course the height of the pack once closed would be significantly less than 39 inches. Realizing of course that when loaded it won't be a perfect square dimension etc but I don't see how the pack can hold 3400 cubic inches per the manufacturer's spec.

I'm wondering if Chris's pack varies significantly from production packs? I thought Chris and Ryan had prototype packs.

[CW]

Daniel, I have a production model and that's not really how you calculate pack volume from dimensions. That would assume the pack is a perfect rectangle, which it's not. Even the method below is rough since these packs taper.

My 39 inch measurement would allow the pack to be closed, but not rolled down.

Anyway, the circumference of my pack is 33 inches. Using that in combination with the 39 inch height….

The cross-sectional area for a circumference of 33 inches is 87 inches. When you multiply that by the height you get a volume of 3393 cubic inches. That's pretty close IMO, but is definitely a rough way to do it.

Dan McHale's site gives a good breakdown on estimating this way.

[Diplomatic Mike]

I agree with James. The preface seemed a little weird. Folk only carry UL packs to score points?
Really?
I carry mine for comfort.

[CW]

I'm pretty sure it says "some". :-)

This could prove to be interesting though, seeing how people interpret the language differently.

[D G]

Chris,

Thanks for the clarification re volume.

By the way, did not see it in the article (or missed it), but I asked HMG about accessories (hipbelt pockets/side pockets/front pocket etc) and they indicate they will be making them early in 2012 for attachment to the pack (for those who don't want to make their own).

[CW]

Thanks for adding that Daniel. I thought I had put it in there, but apparently I missed it. I've gotten the same information from Mike @ HMG about accessories, although I didn't get a timeline.

I'm interested to see what they come out with myself. The attachment method for my MYOG hip pockets required modifying the belt, but they're very stable and HUGE. An Oly XZ-1 fits with plenty of room left for snacks and some other small items.

[Diplomatic Mike]

Sure seems like a strange preface for an UL Backpcking site.

"Some ultralight backpackers have developed an unquenchable fetish for packs that are measured in ounces, seemingly with no regard at all to what the pack has offered with respect to durability, comfort, or aesthetic design.

Small manufacturers continue to feed this small market. The market for such packs may exist for several reasons. Perhaps some customers are overly simplistic about their gear requirements, and they only desire to meet some arbitrary weight specification. Perhaps some customers lack sufficient education and experience about lightweight backpacking and assume that lighter is always better. Others might be living out their narcissistic tendencies (c'mon, you know we all have them) on the internet by drawing attention to our gear lists and the latest and greatest gear that they own and you don't. Maybe some hikers just don't carry that much weight – ever – and thus never have an opportunity to tax their backpack. Regardless, a market for "SUL" gear remains, however small or large it is."

It actually comes across as quite insulting to members on here who use UL packs.

[Tad Englund]

I would be interested to know how you guys think the pack fabric would hold up to repeated in and out of bush planes (not much different then granite or "poke-y brush") and sand.
Also, how might it withstand deep wading (bottom of pack floating on water) or deep river crossings, and heavy constant rain.

I might have to wait for the Rolling Review, but any input now would be appreciated.

[CW]

It actually comes across as quite insulting to members on here who use UL packs.

I'm curious what makes a pack "UL" for you? When I first started looking in to Lightweight and then Ultralight, it (more or less) required a pack being 2 pounds or less. That would make the Porter a UL pack. Note that my personal pack is a bit heavier than what David Ure got (I suspect due to my prototype stays).

[D G]

This is what they told me:
"We do have plans to release an accessory line for the Porter and Expedition packs. I am shooting to have have these available towards the end of February or the first of March. The accessory line will include a removable stuff it pocket, removable hip belt pockets and a removable side pocket."

[Diplomatic Mike]

It doesn't matter what i call UL, Chris. I didn't write the article.

[Tad Englund]

You took the bait, so lighten up. The into to the article was obviously trying to hook your interest into reading further… and you did. Goal accomplished.

In your opinion, maybe it wasn't the way you would have written it. Ryan, was had some issues/opinions with the durability and quality of UL packs lately. Right or wrong, its his opinion.
I'm more interested in the specifics of the packs and the review than the tone of the intro.
Then again, that is just my opinion.

Boy there are a lot of opinion's (actual word) in my post. Maybe I ought to lighten up?

[Author]

Posts