Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

[Hamish McHamish]

"You took the bait…"

That occurred to me too. I don't know which is worse: purposefully using inflammatory language to generate responses, or a genuinely snarky attitude towards people using gear & tactics promulgated for years by a website called BackPackingLight.com.

I suppose the site staff have to do something to keep things moving year after year. How long can you run a site that just says "carry less stuff, and use lighter versions of what you do carry"?

[David Ure]

Mike – I think you may be reading a bit too much into the preface. Consider that there are some who carry 4oz frameless backpacks with 20lbs and claim comfort, durability, etc, just to say they carry a 4oz pack. I believe it.

The premise of comfort and durability is sometimes lost in the search for ultralight nirvana.

[Diplomatic Mike]

I hear what you say Dave, but it still comes across as patronising at the best, and insulting at the worst.
The pack i use most is my MLD Prophet. It was chosen for its durable fabrics, good workmanship, and lack of frills. I use it because it is the most comfortable pack i own. The preface suggests i may have chosen it for insignificant and childish reasons, and suggests other members do so too.

[Mary D]

The lead-in to an article does not need to insult its readers in order to get interest!

There is a place for frameless packs and a place for packs with heftier frames. It all depends on the load and the individual carrying it. I personally can't carry more than 2-3 lbs. in a frameless pack, thanks to extremely sensitive shoulders, but I know folks who have thru-hiked the PCT with frameless packs and been very comfortable. I can't use a pack that doesn't have load lifters (I need the shoulder straps pulled completely away so there's no contact at all with the tops of my shoulders), but many people are quite comfortable without load lifters and find them unnecessary.

I did not even start the review since (1) I'm very satisfied with my current 7-year-old pack and (2) I already knew that HMG packs don't have load lifters, so for me that automatically eliminates them. The posts here led me to go back and read the introduction, which I also find insulting to those who prefer frameless packs. Even if I were interested in this pack, I would have skipped the rest of the article after reading the introduction, which seemed awfully intolerant of those with differing opinions. Frankly, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

Maybe not the best way to start, by alienating at least half of your readers?

[David Ure]

Okay – I see where you are coming from. The Prophet wouldn't fall into 'that' category, certainly. Given that he doesn't specifically identify any branded packs I am not sure we can necessarily apply his comments to our own pack quiver.

[David Ure]

"Even if I were interested in this pack, I would have skipped the rest of the article after reading the introduction, which seemed awfully intolerant of those with differing opinions. Frankly, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

Maybe not the best way to start, by alienating at least half of your readers?"

Holy smokes. Alienation? Intolerance? Differing opinions? Sounds like the Republican Primaries.

Since when are reviews objective?

[Nick Gatel]

Oh, come on folks. It said "some" and IMO it is true. Heck, I have done it to see what I could do and what would work. I have a sub 4 oz pack. And how many threads have we seen where folks are trying to get to SUL or XUL, primarily for the weight's sake and bragging rights?

I read the article to figure out why Jordan felt so strongly about this back in the recent "stagnation" article, when in the past he highly praised his McHale packs. And no, I do not see any innovation with this pack.

Lets focus on the features and benefits of the pack.

[Hamish McHamish]

As I read this review's preface, I thought I had seen the same tone before. I did some googling and sure enough, the same snark was used the last time a framed pack was promoted by BPL:

"If you are an ounce-counter who wants a backpack that looks "ultralight" on your gear list spreadsheet, this is not the pack for you."

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/bpl_absaroka_backpack.html

[BlackHatGuy]

I tend to agree with Mike and Ken that it was a bit of a strange way to preface a review (remember, the word "Some" was added after Ken's post, it wasn't in the original).

While, yes, the preface is opinion for some undetermined number of ULers, it's still a pretty broad brush with which the authors smack a portion of their audience across the face, and then they, perhaps, take it a bit too far (those who buy these UL packs are either: overly simplistic and arbitrary, ignorant and inexperienced, narcissistic, or, perhaps, they really are UL backpackers, who'd a thunk?). And the word 'fetish' has negative connotations, regardless of what its true definition is.

It's certainly pretty easy to read the preface as rather patronizing, actually, which will evoke (and has evoked) a backlash of sorts, and that's not good. There are a couple of (communications) reasons why I believe the preface was ill conceived:

1. You've automatically made some portion of your audience 'enter' the review with a negative feeling toward the reviewers. No good comes from that, and it hurts the review and stands in the way of the information you're trying to impart.

2. Your audience is now discussing the preface as much if not more than the review and the pack itself – this is most certainly not what you want to have happen. When it does, regardless of how inflammatory you think the preface is or isn't, it has failed to do its job. It was not well conceived.

So could they have made the same point in much less inflammatory language? I think so. Dave Ure does a great job with part of it:

The premise of comfort and durability is sometimes lost in the search for ultralight nirvana when it comes to UL backpacks. Ultralight backpacks are often simply measured in ounces, at times with seemingly little regard to what a pack can offer in the way of durability, comfort, or aesthetic design. We believe that this can create a significant opportunity for UL pack manufacturers to design gear based on ultralight principles, but at a much higher standard of performance, and for only a little bit of extra weight. The HMG Porter and Expedition packs seem to be targeting this objective.

Doesn't 'attack' or 'belittle' anyone, shouldn't raise the ire the original preface did, but still makes the same overall point. Allows the discussion to be about the pack and the review of it instead of the preface.

Words do count.

[CW]

Doug- unless someone I don't know about modified the review (which is possible but unlikely), "some" has been there since it was published.

Edit – I was wrong. Ryan added that, but I think it was only to that first line that Ken quoted. I believe it was there in the rest of the statements when originally published.

[BlackHatGuy]

OBE

[David Ure]

"And no, I do not see any innovation with this pack."

Sub 2 lb 3400 cubed pack that can carry 30 plus pounds in comfort and is rain proof?

[Tad Englund]

Doug, that was an excellent post, I wish you would have written it sooner. I think it states the problem and fix for the into (I agree with you about the into).

Doug has eloquently drawn the curtain on the discussion of the into, now lets start discussing the actual review-

I'll restate my original questions (lost in the fray)

"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]

Some people like a review/article/story with edge/flair/personality, some don't. Fair enough.

[David Ure]

Tad – I just started using mine. It is definitely rain and snow proof from my use and the fabric doesn't seem to absorb much moisture although admittedly, I haven't weighed before and after. Not sure about the bottom of the pack floating on water.

The fabric is quite thick and appears to be quite abrasian resistant. I would think at least as good as 210d small grid dyneema but my use has been limited at this point. The 4-6oz spectra that Dan Mchale uses in his packs would be the BEST option for maximum abrasion resistance, but the hybrid fabric used by HMG should be just fine for granite.

I hope to get out again the in the next 2 weeks and will report back.

Chris?

Edited for spelling.

[Hamish McHamish]

"Sub 2 lb 3400 cubed pack…"

Aw jeez, not those gram-counting spreadsheet fetishists again! :)

[Eric Binder]

I wonder which category this UL pack, pictured on the cover of this conspicuously familiar book, falls under, hmmmm…..

[William Chilton]

"Some people like a review/article/story with edge/flair/personality, some don't."
Flair and personality, I like; edge I can do with out in a review.
Douglas was spot on, in my opinion.

[Richard Scruggs]

Constructive suggestion:

Perhaps these reviews should include "cost" as a significant concern in the quest for gear that innovatively meets other criteria for lightweight backpacking?

(Drift deleted.)

[David Ure]

Hilarious James.

;)

[CW]

Ryan is testing water absorption rates and dry times, but I've seen some prelim numbers that indicate lower absorption and a faster dry rate than other UL packs in the two pound range.

Abrasion resistance testing on mine has been limited to dragging it across/over/through talus fields in MT. I've also squeezed through some tight spots under tree cover, but nothing too serious (no briars, etc.). So far I have no signs of wear. We've been given limited details on the fabric composition since it's proprietary to HMG. All I know is that it's a laminate of lightweight nylon (I'd guess 210d) and a custom version of Cuben that uses both a heavier/thicker Dyneema fiber as well as a heavier/thicker membrane.

My flotation experience has been limited to a Windrider and a less than graceful attempt at crossing a snow-covered log in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. I went to cross it in snowshoes and fell in a creek. My legs wound up draped over the log and my torso should've been in the water. My Windrider was airtight enough and had enough flotation to keep me from going under so only my arms and torso got wet (my head stayed out). When I made it to camp I only found a few drops of water in the bottom of the pack. Not an exact test, but the Porter and Expedition are taped in a lot of areas and the Windrider isn't taped at all. Not sure if that gives you what you really want or not, but that's my experience.

[CW]

The idea behind the "rolling review" is for us to be able to get a first impression out fast, follow that up with objective data (in this case ATSM volume, water absorption and dry times, etc.), and then finally with a conclusion and rating based on a fair test time. This review doesn't fit entirely because we've had prototypes to test and have been able to make some subjective impressions (or conclusions) already. However, changes have been made with each revision and we have only had limited time to test a production version. As unlikely as it may be, impressions (and conclusions) might change.

On your pack idea – Colin Ibbotson built something almost identical to what you're describing and called it the Skins Pack. He was going to bring it to market, but ultimately decided he'd rather be out exploring than running a pack business.

[Hamish McHamish]

Great point Eric. That photo encapsulates why this article's language is irritating. In other news, Joaquin Guzman has denounced the horrible illegal drug trade in North America.

From the preface:

"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…"

You gotta watch out for those narcissists who draw internet attention to gear lists:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=1435

[Jason Elsworth]

I will be interested to see just how much demand there is from the UL community for a mid sized pack (55L) that can potentially carry 40 plus pounds. It's always good to have options though and I am pleased to see more packs coming onto the market.

[Tad Englund]

Richard's pack idea- maybe a new thread would have been better for both your ideas-
Chris sorry for the thread drift.

That idea has been tried a number of times without much success (I owned 3 different packs with this design)
Dana Gleason as far as I know put it in production first, and Kelty sold a 3 size system called the Mystery-Ranch series and Mystery Ranch still has some in production. None of these fit the lightweight category definitely not UL.
In UL packs The Arctic 1000 gave a few options but it is no longer produced.

A new thread should be started if more discussion on this is wanted.

Back to the regularly schedule programming

[Author]

Posts