Topic

Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Campfire Editor’s Roundtable Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 216 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1283968
    Addie Bedford
    BPL Member

    @addiebedford

    Locale: Montana
    #1823091
    Ken Thompson
    BPL Member

    @here

    Locale: Right there

    "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.

    #1823121
    Ryan Jordan
    Admin

    @ryan

    Locale: Central Rockies

    Good catch, Ken :)

    #1823158
    David Chenault
    BPL Member

    @davec

    Locale: Queen City, MT

    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.

    #1823160
    David Ure
    Member

    @familyguy

    I am loving my Porter!

    #1823164
    Gabe Grayum
    Member

    @sauron93

    Locale: Pacific NW

    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.

    #1823165
    CW
    BPL Member

    @simplespirit

    Locale: .

    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).

    #1823167
    Richard Scruggs
    BPL Member

    @jrscruggs

    Locale: Oregon

    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."

    #1823168
    Roleigh Martin
    BPL Member

    @marti124

    Locale: Founder & Lead Moderator, https://www.facebook.com/groups/SierraNorthPCThikers

    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).

    #1823170
    David Chenault
    BPL Member

    @davec

    Locale: Queen City, MT

    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.

    #1823178
    David Ure
    Member

    @familyguy

    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.

    #1823191
    CW
    BPL Member

    @simplespirit

    Locale: .

    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.

    #1823197
    Hamish McHamish
    BPL Member

    @el_canyon

    Locale: USA

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

    #1823201
    D G
    Spectator

    @dang

    Locale: Pacific Northwet

    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.

    #1823210
    CW
    BPL Member

    @simplespirit

    Locale: .

    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.

    #1823217
    Diplomatic Mike
    Member

    @mikefaedundee

    Locale: Under a bush in Scotland

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

    #1823218
    CW
    BPL Member

    @simplespirit

    Locale: .

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

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

    #1823221
    D G
    Spectator

    @dang

    Locale: Pacific Northwet

    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).

    #1823225
    CW
    BPL Member

    @simplespirit

    Locale: .

    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.

    #1823226
    Diplomatic Mike
    Member

    @mikefaedundee

    Locale: Under a bush in Scotland

    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.

    #1823227
    Tad Englund
    BPL Member

    @bestbuilder

    Locale: Pacific Northwest

    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.

    #1823231
    CW
    BPL Member

    @simplespirit

    Locale: .

    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).

    #1823234
    D G
    Spectator

    @dang

    Locale: Pacific Northwet

    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."

    #1823236
    Diplomatic Mike
    Member

    @mikefaedundee

    Locale: Under a bush in Scotland

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

    #1823243
    Tad Englund
    BPL Member

    @bestbuilder

    Locale: Pacific Northwest

    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?

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 216 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...