Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

[Brian Doble]

"Perhaps some customers are overly simplistic about their gear requirements…"

[dan mchale]

Tad, Before Dana was Dana McHale Packs was making a modular system in 1987;

http://www.mchalepacks.com/ultralight/Detail%20Hi%20Rez%20Pages/Modular%20Alpineer%201987.htm

&

http://www.mchalepacks.com/ultralight/Detail%20Hi%20Rez%20Pages/Modular%20Alpineer%201987%20pg%202.htm

[W I S N E R !]

What if Backpacker Magazine published a review of a 2lb. pack made by a major manufacturer and started the review with the same preface…

I suspect we'd have a crapstorm of insult and injury raging on the forums right now. Lines would be drawn in the sand, boycotts declared, and legions of the Most Faithful of UL Acolytes would be beating their shields and demanding Jonathan Dorn's blaspheming head on a stake.

Could it be that such heresy could come from the same site that held us like babes and spoon fed us the UL gospel in the days of old?

The End Times are upon us.

But besides the preface, I didn't read it. Don't want or need a new pack :)

[David Ure]

I guess the first modular packing system was the old Alice packs from the 1970's. Yuk.

Dan, do you still make those types of packs – i.e. with just the frame and modular pack bags that you can add?

[Richard Scruggs]

Dan,

For that 1987 McHale Packs Modular Alpineer, do you recall the price (in 1987 dollars), weight, and main pack capacity?

(This station break brought to you by #occupy_thread_briefly. Returning now to regularly scheduled programming :>) ).

[dan mchale]

The system was meant to be able to carry whatever rucksack you wanted to put on there. In the photos the packs are about 3,000 cubes. The top pack with the single attaching lid, the one sitting next to the carrier frame, is the old summit sack, an internal frame pack that weighed 1.5 lbs with the stays.

The carrier was heavier of course, probably about 3 to 4 lbs. The cost for the carrier in 1987 might have been about $300.00

[Richard Scruggs]

Chris,

Thanks for the reference to Colin's Skin Pack, which led me to the following thread providing good descriptions of the pack, including great photos at p3:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=31682

And Dan, thanks for the info. A much, much lighter frame would sure open new horizons for a lot of old SUL frameless packs!

[Anonymous]

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

Good point, Chris. While I think Doug made some excellent points in his post above, I have been watching the general reaction to several of Ryan's recent, perhaps controversial, comments, including the one that began the review, with dismay. It seems to me that a lot of folks are just waiting to jump down his throat at the slightest provocation, instead of bypassing the parts that irritate them and concentrating on the meat of his posts. He's a bright guy with a lot of experience and insights that he is trying to share, not always in the most sensitive way, but what does that matter in the ultimate scheme of things? What I fear is that he will give up in disgust and retreat back into the silence that so many of you were b!tching about until he started posting again. That would be a significant loss to the community, IMO. To all of you who are so roundly offended, I would say this: If you are confident in your gear selection ability and satisfied with the results in the field, what does it matter how Ryan phrases his comments? Let it slide and take what nuggets you can from the content. He might just come up with something you haven't thought of, in which case the rought edges of his prose are a small price to pay. If not, why not just let it go? Nobody's perfect and, in any case, there are people on this site with far less to offer who post using far more offensive language than RJ. Maybe save some of your indignation for them? Personally, I am looking forward to the new format and the large amount of useful information it promises to contain, and I could care less if RJ doesn't come off like William Jennings Bryan.

To paraphrase Roman Dial: We post our insecurities.

Edited for content.

[David Ure]

Well said, Tom.

[Luke Schmidt]

+1 Well said Tom

I haven't always agreed with what Ryan Jordan says about gear but sometimes I come back around to his point of view after other things don't work quit so well. He's put in a lot of miles and tried a lot of gear so when he writes something (wish he'd do it more) I pay attention.

[Richard Scruggs]

Tom,

Thanks for laying that out so well. I often go back to read Ryan's 2005 book for his views relevant to gear issues or techniques that I'm looking into.

Wish Ryan would issue his cell number to life members (a new benefit?) so they can call him to hash over whatever's on their mind in prepping a trip.

[Tad Englund]

Dan, I didn't mean to leave you out (or anyone else), I guess I was just listing the "production" players.

My first pack (1960's) was a wood frame backboard with a canvas bag attached, fits the description, but not really relevant to the discussion.

I think the poster wants an option like you did/do and the others in Ultralight. I They have not been profitable in the production arena so far; though the idea is a good one.

Any further discussion about this concept should be moved to another thread so we don't further detract from this thread.

[Miguel Arboleda]

I agree with both Doug and Tom. Both bring up some good points about the article. I definitely agree with Tom's admonishment that we should be glad that Ryan is getting involved with the community again.

But two things… One is that I can't help but get the sense that Ryan seems to be resentful about how things in this community have been going. A lot of that very much is legitimate and I'm sure that if I was in his position I, too, would find it difficult to hold back the backlash I'd want to let loose. I do feel that the long silence may in part have contributed to the resentments all around never getting resolved, but I guess now is better than never.

Which brings me to the second, more important (in the context of this review) point. This is supposed to be one of BPL's "as objective as possible" reviews. Isn't that what BPL reviews are famous for? That half of the readers in this thread (including myself) are spending more time talking about the tone of the article than on the subject of the review, says a lot about both the way the article was written and the atmosphere of the forums. There seems to be partly be an assumption that Ryan is the one who should be listened to, while readers are "followers" and therefore their outrage (or support) don't carry the same weight, or that readers don't have the expertise or legitimacy to make comments. Hmm. Perhaps it is more in the middle somewhere? Some of the criticisms here are right on the mark, others less so.

Either way, the article does have problems with it, especially so soon after the uncomfortable thread Ryan started not too long ago. Personally, my main concern with the article was that it was reviewing a product that hadn't gone through its paces yet, and still needed more time out in the hills for the reviewers to get a proper evaluation of the pack. I felt kind of put off by being expected to take the review seriously when the reviewers themselves still hadn't gotten a complete picture of what it was they were using. It is the first review of this kind that I've seen on BPL. Seemed quite strange to me. A "rolling review"? Both Ryan and Chris (especially Chris) have been extolling the virtues of and waxing joyous about the pack that they've been inputting to HMG in its design. I'm sure they are both trying their best to be objective about the review, but I can't help but think that they've already decided what they think of their own design (yes, I am aware of Ryan's statement that he had no part in the design… which in itself seems contrary to earlier things he and Chris had written in the forums, on Twitter, and in the blogs. Seems contrary to the very standards that BPL adheres to.

Maybe I'm just reading more into all this than should be. But what is a review for except to make these kinds of observations and criticisms?

[dan mchale]

Yes Tad, let's get down to brass tacks….

Ryan probably says many things tongue in cheek of course, as I tend to do, and this does not often come across like it is intended when the proper smiley faces and etc. are not applied. If I was in Ryan's postion, I would have a very very hard time taking all of this TOO seriously, and would be coming off the same way……if not worse! And when I say all of it, I don't just mean these few editorials, but 1000% of everything. :>)

The worst part is that this is all more fun than actually working!

[James holden]

cant make people happy either way …

some demand more reviews and updates … when it doesnt go the way some people want, they complain

a review is just that … a review … full of opinions… what you make of them is up to you

if you dont like it, vote with your feet and wallets … its that simple

personally i like the idea of a 55L+ fully framed durable pack that weights under 1000gm … i personally think that would benefit more people than some sack with straps, there are enough of those around …

but hey … its your back …

[dan mchale]

Oops, I was not referring to this article, except the 'off-the-cuffness' part, just in case it was taken that way by anyone. I better get out of here while I still can. :>)

2 lb framed packs are cool in my boat.

Hey Eric, is that 1000 gms a play on my 1000% ? That's funny. I had a Cuben Fiber dream the other night and even tried to get back into it after I woke up.

[Ken Thompson]

Hey that Some at the beginning of the preface was edited in this morning after I called them on it. I had copied and pasted the text right into my reply. And doesn't that make Ryan's good catch post make sense now. Glad to see it changed. A retraction of sorts would have been proper.

[Sam Farrington]

"Lets focus on the features and benefits of the pack."

Thank you.

[James holden]

no play dan

1000gm is a good ballpark for us metric bums …

[Warren Greer]

Didn't read all the pages but it wasn't on the first page (that I noticed).

[BlackHatGuy]

$275 for the Porter, $300 for the Expedition on the HMG website.

[Richard Scruggs]

The price of the Porter ($275) is also shown at or near the bottom row of each of the three tables in the article.

[David Ure]

They recently had a sale and I got mine for $206.

[Warren Greer]

I read the table wrong. Anyway, thanks for all the *helpful* replies!

[dan mchale]

NM :>)

[Author]

Posts