Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

[Nick Gatel]

Okay I am confused with the light packs. They are working out for your trips when you need to carry 7 or more days of food? What about the days when no water is available?

[Jesse Lucas]

Very timely article! I just bought this pack for winter camping. I was wondering how you pack your Porter? The Porter seems to be a lot taller and have a smaller circumference than I'm used to. Would love some insight on what solutions / techniques you've used. Specifically on packing your bed roll.

[Anonymous]

"Okay I am confused with the light packs. They are working out for your trips when you need to carry 7 or more days of food? What about the days when no water is available?"

Not sure if this is directed to me, Nick, but if it is: Yes, the Ohm works fine for up to 10 day trips. My food weight is currently 19.2 oz/day X 9 days = 172.8 oz + 5 oz for the last day = 177(176.8 rounded up)/16 oz = 11# of food. My base weight is 9.3#, which yields a total carried weight of 20.3#. I am not a desert hiker, and the most water I ever carry is 1.5 quarts on the first leg of the Shepherd Pass trail to last me to the first water source. I have carried up to 30# on training hikes up to 18 miles and found the Ohm to be tolerably comfortable up to 25-26# and bearable to 30, but not something I'd want to make a habit of. At my 25# tolerably comfortable limit, I still have room for 1-2 day's of food to extend my range to 12 days, which I have not done so far. I have carried an 11 day load, but ended up coming out a day early. I suppose comfort is a subjective matter, but I have found the OHM to be the best combination of capacity, comfort, and price point I have seen so far. I have not encountered any durability issues in 3 years of hiking in some fairly rugged terrain at times. It would be interesting to compare a pack like the OHM to HMG packs and other lightweight framed packs at some point in the future, as it unfortunately fell thru the cracks when Will was reviewing packs a while back. He seemed to consider it neither fish nor fowl.

[Anonymous]

"For more than about a 20pound pack load I would take something a little beefier myself, not the Murmur. I never go out with >30pounds anymore."

My experience(see my above post to Nick) is in the same ballpark, about 23# at the outside.

[S Long]

I'm interested in this pack as a potential mountaineering/climbing pack. It seems like a decent design for heavier loads like you see in these settings. I wish they had the option to add ice axe supports (like their ice pack) and a crampon pouch/patch. That would just about make it perfect for me. I think it needs to be a bit more like a Cold Cold World, a Cilogear, or a Wild Things pack. I will likely end up buying a Cilogear 60L to do what I want this pack to do. Heavier, yes, but also more versatile.

[Nick Gatel]

Tom,

No, not you at all. Just the concept that we should reject a pack just because it does not meet some arbitrary weight. There are many other parts of a kit that should receive scrutiny first.

What matters is that each individual assembles the gear that works for them and that the gear enhances their wilderness experience. Just because some well known person uses or recommends a specific pack does not mean it is the right pack for the majority of people. Hopefully a review will touch all the positive and negative attributes of a pack that the majority of readers want to know about. I do not buy into the percentage of total weight should designated to a back. How it functions is priority #1.

[Stephan Doyle]

@S Long, I have heard of HMG putting the extra stuff onto these packs. It might be worth asking.

I ordered a Porter and Expedition with the intent on sending at least one back. For those who can avoid filling the extra space, the expedition is a better buy (though I'm not sure it's getting an extra thousand cubes). Then again, I'm not sure if I'll be keeping either of them at this point. I wanted a beefy pack that could handle the following situations: 1) A bear can, 2) Winter, 3) Climbing, in that order. I'll get to test criteria #1 this weekend.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

Interesting pack. I'm glad to see this one on the market. Right now there is a lot of opportunity in the niche of lightweight 'expedition' sized packs for long trips, winter trips and pack rafting trips. I like the simple yet versatile design.

A few interesting competitors to the Porter are the new Zpacks Exos (same fabric, external frame, 13oz) and the ULA Circuit (a bit heavier at 36oz, but a proven big load hauler).

"We've been given limited details on the fabric composition since it's proprietary to HMG."
I don't think this material is proprietary to HMG if it's the same stuff they're using for the Windrider. Zpacks appears to be using the same fabric in some of their packs (ie. Exo, option on Zero). It wouldn't be for big loads, but a custom Zpacks Zero with this fabric would be a bomber little pack for shorter UL trips.

"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."
I'm pretty sure the nylon is less than 210D. I'd guess 70-100D based on looking at my wife's Windrider. If this is the same fabric Zpacks is using, then it weighs 2.92oz/yd. Just 210D nylon weighs about 4oz/yd, so if you added cuben to that you'd be looking around 5oz/yd.

My wife has quite a bit of use on her Windrider (ie. maybe 50 days so far this year). I like the fabric. I would give the durability nod to 210D nylon, but this stuff does seem to hold up pretty good. Aside from some minor-moderate stitch hole elongation, there's no significant damage so far. The waterproofness of the pack is a real plus, as it eliminates the weight and hassle of a pack cover/liner. That's a big selling point for me.

[Stephan Doyle]

@Dan: I don't think this is the same material Zpacks is using. The patches Joe sent me feel significantly lighter than the HMG packs I have sitting in the other room. This could be resolved by asking HMG the weight of their fabric, but the HMG stuff feels much burlier than the Zpacks (granted, one is a small patch versus a stitched-together pack…).

[Luke Schmidt]

I for one would be very interested in the fabric. Not only how does it handle abrasion but how long will it last before the seams pull loose. After using some more fragile packs I consider Dyneema X the lightest I'll except in a new pack, at least for heavier loads. If this fabric is less than that than thats would be the end of it for me. If I were convinced the fabric was more durable than there just might be a Porter in my feature.

[David Ure]

No, it is definitely at least 210d fabric. It is easily comparable to the dyneema X I have.

This isn't the same cuben used in tarps. Indeed, it doesn't even feel like cuben to me.

[Diplomatic Mike]

There have been quite a few posts saying very light packs are not the best at carrying heavy loads. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
I would use a pack offering more support if i am carrying a bigger load than normal. I don't use my Prophet if carrying a winter load with all the associated hardware.
Instead of the dismissive attitude to UL packs in the preface, a statement along those lines would have been better.
Something like "Although UL packs are great for loads up to to XX pounds, the XX Pack may suit you better for those times when you have to carry more".

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

I wonder if HMG is using a heavier nylon/cuben hybrid fabric for the Porter than the Windrider? I've got a Windrider and a ULA Ohm in front of me, and the nylon on the Windrider looks much thinner/finer than the Ohm.

[David Ure]

We may never completely know, Dan because the manufacturer does not provide that information. Given the cuben / dyneema fabric, I bet it would have a higher tear resistance although I am guessing here as well.

Perhaps we have to wait for updates to the review….; )

[William Chilton]

"Second thought on bias… somehow I have a feeling that Chris and Ryan really wanted to like this pack before using it, and I get a sense that this may impact their objectiveness. I may be wrong, and if I am I apologize now.
I do not like the rolling review format. Why is BPL doing it this way?"
This was also my first impression: that the reviewers weren't starting from a neutral position. Combine that with the choice to introduce rolling reviews with this pack only strengthens that impression. The impression may well be a completely false one but it made me slightly biased against what seems to be a very good pack for some situations.
And that, for me, is something that didn't come out clearly without rereading carefully: this is (provisionally) a good pack when carrying a heavier load, not as the pack of choice for lighter loads.
In the preface, they list the reasons why customers might choose ultralight packs, and start with three negative (slightly insulting?) attributions, before ending with just one positive (and in my opinion probably the most common) reason – that the weight some people are carrying doesn't need a heavier pack. Had the order of the reasons been reversed, and the transition to negative reasons been made with a "but", I think it would have looked less as though the review was attacking those who use a lighter pack.
I have recently moved to using a SMD Swift. I've had 12kg in it with no stay without any soreness or discomfort. For 10 day trips without resupply, I need to carry 15kg. I'll add the stay and if it's still comfortable, I don't need to change my pack. If it proves uncomfortable at that weight, I'll consider the Porter as one of the options for 10 day trips.

[CW]

I was only guessing at the type of Nylon. I do know that the finished weight on the current fabric is 3.3 oz sq/yd so a bit heavier than what Joe is using. I'm pretty sure it's the same as the Windrider, but again, not 100%. The weight over what Joe has could be due to a heavier nylon or a heavier Cuben. With the laminate construction it's very hard to tell which layer is heavier.

[James Marco]

Nick,
Water is not a problem, I lump this in with foraging. Two full 600ml Gatoraid bottles are all I bring. I have a 3.5ounce bladder I carry IFF I expect a dry camp. The water is added in to pack weight. This is measured by simply weighing it at the trailhead with a digital bike scale, give or take about 10g. In the ADK's, there is more water sources around than a lot of places. No worries.

I have several packs I use for light loads. For the past 10 years or so, I have wanted, then found, real UL packs for this loading. GVP, later Gossamer Gear, made some good packs, and some pretty crappy packs. Anyway, I have been on 10day trips with 23 pounds. 13day trips with 27pounds. 14 day trips with 29pounds. and so on. Being retired, I get to go out for about 60 days a year. I have not carried 30pounds since my last 6week canoe trip over the NFCT, but that was supported, in the sense that there were rest stops no further than 7-10 days apart. G4(17oz,) G5(6.8oz), Miniposa(15oz), Gregory(2#8), Tough Traveler(2#2), Kelty(4#14), Gregory(~5#13?), Osprey(3#7), Golite(2#2), Mountansmith(2#4) are a few I have. I replaced the G5 with a Murmur this year(8.5oz.) I have another half dozen packs around, but these were mostly used once and never used again for one reason or another. The Porter/Expedition would end up among these, I am afraid. Probably make a good guide pack or canoe dry pack, though.

The overall percentage of dead weight to weight carried by a pack is just a rough estimate. Comfort is always the first criteria. With ~20pound loads it doesn't much matter. I can carry almost any pack at that weight, so, I look for a good light pack. Heavier loads require more, generally stiffer frames, so the percentage tends to climb a bit. Manufacturors will curcumvent this by adding a stiffener to an otherwise framless pack. But, stiffeners lack good attachments, soo, this is limiting. This is also due to human physiology. You can carry 20 pounds all day, mostly without noticing it much. 30 pounds starts getting heavy. 40pounds is heavy. 50 pounds is very heavy. Without training, this is about the limit. With training, you can carry up to 100pounds or more, but this *does* require training. But, you can be a hundred pounds overweight and carry that around ALL THE TIME. Conditioning? Training? Whatever. ~5% for 20pound loads is OK, with carefull searching you can go considerably less. An example: a 1/2pound pack for 20pounds gives about 2.5%. this jumps to about 7%-8% by the time you hit 35pounds or around a 2#13 pack. About 10% for 45-55pounds or around a 5#8 pack. This is about the minimum weight needed to support those loads. Lots of variables, and your milage may vary. It jives fairly well with my observed comfort with variuous packs, though. There are lots of manufacturors out there. Some sacrifice comfort to save weight. Some sacrifice weight for comfort. I am sure you can find examples both ways.

Here is a rough graph:

[CW]

Mike @ HMG has confirmed their intentions to make the following accessories available for the Porter and Expedition packs:

Removable stuff-it pocket
Removable side pockets

They may also offer a water bottle holder and an ice axe tube.

They are planning to start development in February and hope to have them available for purchase in March.

I also want to emphasize that attaching gear like an ice axe is pretty simple on these packs thanks to all of the daisy chains. A little shock cord and a cord lock run through the loops is all you really need. If I had one on hand I'd set it up and take photos, but there's not a lot of ice axe opportunity here in the SE US. :-)

If you have questions about accessories or things like attaching an ice axe (I know Mike @ HMG uses one in the NE), you can also contact HMG directly.

[Martin Rye]

Shock cord is all you need to hold a water bottle onto the shoulder straps. Lightest option as well. Mountain marathon runners have been doing it for years.

Chris/Ryan I like this review and pack. I dont get nor see the point of the opening lines. But opinion is always going to be somewhere.

Why I like this pack is its clean lines and frame with wrap-around hipbelt as well. My GG Gorilla has it flaws. Shoulder straps could be better and the padding in them slips and deforms the shoulder strap under load sometimes. The material wets out and is 100% not waterproof. So the HMG Porter ticks a lot boxes for me: Comfort, low weight, great hipbelt, durability, shoulder straps and it keeps water out. Living in the UK that helps.

I like the idea of a video on how pack weight/design will influences energy expenditure. Good idea.

[Anonymous]

"There are many other parts of a kit that should receive scrutiny first."

+1

"What matters is that each individual assembles the gear that works for them and that the gear enhances their wilderness experience. Just because some well known person uses or recommends a specific pack does not mean it is the right pack for the majority of people."

+100

[Warren Greer]

Finally finished reading all the posts. I originally read the article several days ago and thought the intro and several parts of the article were condescending but then thought I shouldn't be offended. Then I find that many read it the same way. Doug made a great contribution and presented some logical advice for better article construction. Others have as well. The article should present facts and impressions. It should not seek to have an edge. It reminds me of the negative vibe around BPL for some time now. I've not spent near as much time here because of it. I hope that the sense of friendship and sharing will return and that people will thrill to help each other rather than writing words that incite.

Neat packs, but I'm not sure if they are for me. I have a 3 lb. pack that carries pretty good and I'd like to get down to 2 lbs. or a bit lighter. But a replacement still needs to carry a load from around 25-30 lbs. well. I don't want to carry it on my shoulders. I'm with Nick here. I'd rather have a comfortable pack that is a pound heavier than one that is a pound lighter but can't effectively carry a load.

[Jane Freeman]

As someone new to this site but no stranger to backpacking these are my first impressions and suggestions. I'm toning down my annoyance so here it goes.

By preface deface I mean that the article became coloured. The preface imo devalued the review.

Suggest using a copy editor… (and preferably a woman).

Suggest paying attention to feedback and responding accordingly avoiding defensiveness.

Not a good idea to tease your customers using words like fetish, narcissistic and generally make innuendo that their skills and intelligence are sub-standard. Using humour is a wonderful tool but sarcasm is not always so funny.

Understand that customers do not deserve to be put down in any way.. My enthusiasm felt bullied by pretension.

Revisit your mission statement and why people paid to be here.

This site provides opportunity to post a gear list. I've not done so but have found gear lists incredibly helpful in finding vendors and determining what's possible. Since this is part of the site then why be anything but encouraging about it?

I suggest drop the snark before you jump the shark.

There's something a little weird about paying to be belittled. ….for being new …. for paring down.

The site is comprehensive and active. Why interject anything contrary.

While I'm at it I feel really badly for the cottage industry folks. Of course they're not writing. They've been silenced….a bit betrayed. What can they do but communicate carefully. I'm reading Big fish little pond attitude.

Or just maybe somebody went to a show and saw a whole bunch of shiny new stuff and none of the bread and butter could afford to be there. How to broaden the base without appearing to be a sell out? Blame it on The lack of innovation of the cottage industry then in the next article on those fetishy narcisistic ounce counters. The rationale is now complete for bringing in the new shinier slightly weightier stuff If that's the case it could have been handled much differently. Afterall gratitude is a foremost experience of the wilderness.

[dan mchale]

In the Chart in the Porter Expedition and the Porter Pack Review is listed ‘Unique Features’ among which is “front vertical daisy chains (two total), three compression straps per side.”

I’m wondering what is unique about it. Below is a typical definition of Unique;

u·nique   /yuˈnik/ Show Spelled[yoo-neek] Show IPA
adjective
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.

[Luke Schmidt]

Well maybe three compression straps on either side aren't super creative but I wish more pack makers would use them. Its a feature I like for sure.

[David Ure]

I've seen the three strap design somewhere before. ; )

[Author]

Posts