Material Perception

Hi Lawson

Thanks for the PS disclosure.

Me, I like X-Pac material, and make all my packs out of it. My reasons (comparing to the packcloth I have been able to buy):
* X-Pac is waterproof, and it stays waterproof for a long time (many years).
* X-Pac behaves like an engineering material and keeps its shape.
* X-Pac is strong – I've tested it in the field.
* Packcloth has large gaps or holes between the threads which always leak after a while. You can see light through the gaps.
* Packcloth is very stretchy and distorts easily. The weave is just not tight.
* Seams on packcloth can fray under tension if you are not very careful.

Abrasion resistance – yeah, the lightest X-Pac fabrics can be damaged by dragging them over rocks. I try to use the right gear for the conditions: Spectra/Kevlar if pack-hauling over rocks, but X-Pac is OK in the bush.

Frankly, provided one is careful with one's gear, I think having a waterproof pack is more important.

Cheers

if you make a pack ill take abrasion resistance please …

i use a stuff sac or two for the gear that can get wet so waterproofness isnt a huge deal … when yr opening and closing it constantly in the snow, some will get in regardless and melt

ive blown through a dead bird or two, my current osprey has a few seam gripped and patched holes, and even my mec 1000D bullet pack seems to have a few pinholes now … and i dont think im particularly hard on gear compared to some people i know

Intriguing…. You raise the VX21 vs. 420 packcloth for comparison. Although a valid comparison, I think most of the ultralight community purchasing from the cottage industry is usually looking at VX21, cuben, silnylon or Dyneema in their packs with 420 packcloth being the outsider. I recently chose a cuben hybrid due to strength, light weight, form and WPB. I personally place high value on the WPB of VX21 or cuben and I'm reluctantly willing to sacrifice abrasion resistance. Of course, I would expect a cottage industry pack would use an abrasion resistant fabric (420 packcloth or Dyneema) in the bottom section of the pack. I don't put emphasis on abrasion resistance in other areas.

A better comparison would be 420 packcloth versus Dyneema. I can't see any benefit to the 420 packcloth, except for a minor cost benefit

FYI, this is a functional reply. I think underlying your post are questions and thoughts relating to marketing and cost.

All of those fabrics are way too heavy : )

I use standard 1.4 oz silnylon with 200d bottom, but the 200d bottom is probably unnecesary. I occasionally run into a branch or whatever without any problems. A mouse chewed a hole in it once.

Someday, I'll make a pack out of 0.75 oz Cuben, that would be nice

But I am fairly careful with my gear. For what you're doing the 400D or VX21 or whatever I'm sure is good.

I think it's great you're researching commercial gear here

Thanks for the feedback.

Xpac is a great material and is the reason I am so interested in using it. I have been using the VX07 and VX21 for pack prototypes and I love the material. But, having an open mind I realize some of the benefits could be more so perceived then actual. One of which is not accounting for abrasion resistance. While I realize none of the cottage gear makers use Packcloth, I often wonder why not? Its readily available, affordable, medium weight, comes in millions of colors, is strong, water resistant, and very abrasion resistant..

I realize weight is probably the biggest concern, but when most packs use less then 1 square yard of material your not talking alot of added weight by upgrading to beefier materials. This goes for all materials. The other issue I think going on is most people think standard woven materials are "low tech" and "boring". This is really the only reason for the Dyneema gridstop. That white ripstop grid makes the material exciting, high tech and really cool. But you have to ask yourself, what functional benefit does it add to the material besides adding rip-strength? Is added rip strength the number one issuing plaguing backpack fabrics or is it abrasion resistance? Or could it be puncture resistance? Or could it be water resistance? These are all problems the Dyneema gridstop does not address.. Could it be that most backpackers care more about how their packs look then how they function??

I'm with Roger on this one. VX-21 is easy to work with, and has great waterproofing which lasts a long time. For a packrafting pack, it's a great material.

I've found durability to be adequate with VX-21. For a no-holds-barred pack with both outstanding durability and weatherproofing, DX40 would be the ultimate.

"Could it be that most backpackers care more about how their packs look then how they function??"

Yes

or coolness that goes beyond how it looks

good point about small area = you can use heavier fabrics

I think water resistance is a big problem. Maybe it's just a pet pieve of mine, but I object to having to have a waterproof liner or pack cover.

Ripping, puncturing, abrasion – I've never had a problem with those. I do occasionally smash into a branch or slide the pack on a rock but mostly I'm fairly careful, If you did a lot of bushwacking or rock climbing then it would be a different story.

I believe it was Ray Jardine that pointed out that manufacturers will occasionally have an unhappy customer that abrades, rips, or punctures their pack so it's just easier to way over-build the pack to minimize these.

I've made packs out of PU coated nylon, sil-nylon, spinnaker fabric, 500D Cordura, 200D packcloth, VX07 and VX21 XPAC materials. Some were combinations of the listed fabrics and others were made from only one of the fabrics.

What I have found is that Jerry is correct in saying, "All of those fabrics are way too heavy : )"

With that said IME I have found that very light fabrics used in ultralight backpacks contribute to difficulty in "packing up" in the field. In particular, a pack that I constructed of sil-nylon and spinnaker weighed less than 5 ounces but had little form or structure when it was empty. It carried well and was super light but was one of those packs that required "extra care" in the field.

Since I went to using the XPAC fabric I find that my packs retain their form and shape better and therefore are much easier to pack in the field. I have used 500D Cordura on the bottoms of my packs to solve the abrasion problem. I do have to say however that I haven't really noticed any signs of abrasion on the pack body after some "bushwacking" events.

I think VX07 is a good middle of the road all around fabric for weight and durability. It weighs 4.8 ounces per square yard and has just enough "stiffness" to help a pack stand up and remain open while packing up in the field. The heavier weights of XPAC do have their place however when the going gets rough such as in climbing.

I just finished a VX21 daypack with a Cordura bottom and I am currently working on an all VX21 pack for my personal use. The fabric on the daypack was requested by my son because of its particular look and durability. The pack that I am presently working on is a daily carry pack. I am looking for it to be a minimal care, grab and go pack that will hold up to a lot of use.

"So I am just trying to understand why no cottage gear makers use the material"?

I don't know if Mountainsmith is considered a cottage gear maker but I do believe that XPAC has been used and is still in use in their packs.

Zimmerbuilt has many XPAC fabric packs in evidence.

In the MYOG pack arena XPAC is very evident.

Party On,

Newton

Is X-pac more abrasian resistance than 210d dyneema gridstop?

Mystery Ranch uses some of the VX21 in a couple of their packs.

"All of those fabrics are way too heavy."

Yep. I've used the surfboard analogy before – here it is again. The best surfboards are (very) lightweight & ultra-responsive. Unfortunately, the lighter the board, the shorter the lifespan – less than 6 months before they go "stale". (For professional surfers riding for sponsors ie they get paid to ride certain brands, their boards might last a single day.) Regardless, any avid surfer worth his/her salt will easily go through 1-2 boards per year. At a minimum of $500, a typical board budget is $500-1k per year.

Ok, so how does this relate to UL? Simple, the name of the game is go fast & light. In comparative terms, packs made out of 1.3 sil (the material I use sans any reinforcement) are in the semi-light "shop board" range. Packs made of heavier material(s) would be similar to a sturdy fun board or longboard meant to last multiple years, but in no way considered performance equipment.

I see three questions: (a) exactly how much use will a pack get before it starts to degrade; (b) what is one's budget in terms of simply replacing it every year or so; and (c) how did heavy & sturdy become a defining "look" as opposed to light?

> Packs made of heavier material(s)… ….but in no way considered performance equipment.

I would respectfully disagree with that. Heavy material can make performance equipment.

For small volume UL packs there is so little material used that the maker can opt to spec a more durable material with minimal weight penalty/gain.

> Packs made of heavier material(s)… ….but in no way considered performance equipment.

I would respectfully disagree with that. Heavy material can make performance equipment.

+1

Surfboarding may not be a good analogy. The maneuverability and speed in that sport maybe lasts 30 or 60 seconds on each wave. So yes, if you are sprinting 800 meters with your pack, the lightest pack would be an advantage. But backpacking is normally a series day-long hikes.

I would propose that a heavier material and pack is more efficient. Number one, you are not concerned about damaging the material in brush or against rocks, so you can move faster in that kind of terrain. Also if I use my full Dyneema McHale LBP or Dyneema Grid Bump with the stays, my pack will add one to three pounds to the total load versus a similarly sized pack with the same gear. It will be quicker to pack and get gear out, because I do not have to futz around trying to pack a frameless pack creating a "virtual" frame, but pack my gear in the order I will need items during the day. These packs are perfectly matched and adjusted to my hips, torso and shoulders and much, much more efficient over long days and long miles. Also these packs have a smaller carbon impact as they will lasts decades versus crap packs that needs to be replaced every year or two.

I love my vx07 pack, but I can see how having the membrane be unprotected might be a bummer for some folks. vx21 is way tougher because of the inner taffeta, with not much weight diff.

Lawson, I think you need to pinpoint your market for the packs and let that help dictate the fabric. You mentioned that you wanted to build light, simple and relatively affordable packs – if I remember properly.

For that a durable but somewhat light fabric with a few attractive qualities, like waterproofness, seems to be a better choice than a super bomber dyneema, or a really high denier pack cloth or a super light cuben – etc. I assume you have already come to that conclusion which is why this thread.

The fact that xpac is manufactured and really consistent is why I love it. I like that it is relatively stiff and easy to work with. And I think the big win over the pack cloth fabrics is that my older packs made out of pack cloth always end up with the PU coating peeling off. So far the vx07 seems much more stable, and I like the fact that it is basically a drybag when I roll the top.

And, it is pretty which addresses the deep seated need for cool stuff. My wife jokes that it is my spiderweb bag.

I haven't used Dyneema X Gridstop which is 4.0 oz/sq. yd. 210d pack fabric. Up to this point I have steered away from it due to the $23.95 per linear yard cost involved. I may soon try some of this fabric due to the fact that the price and availability of XPAC is inching towards the price of Dyneema X Gridstop.

Unless you are up for a large bulk order from DP it seems your next option is Rockywoods. Standard VX07 retails for $16.59 per linear yard and Terrain VX21 retails for $18.99 per linear yard. ;-(

The 5 oz. / yd. VX07 compares favorably IMO to the 4.0 oz/sq. yd. Dyneema X Gridstop and costs $7.36 less per linear yard.

FWIW I think the 0.25 mil PET film of the XPAC is a better option than the PU coating of the Dyneema X Gridstop relative to the durability of the waterproof qualities of the respective fabrics.

Party On,

Newton

i believe that were generally talking about walking here …. i would say that performance differences is very minimal, if any between a marginally heavier pack with heavier fabric vs. one with a lighter one …

even in climbing, where every oz you need to carry vertically, the performance difference would be fairly minimal, especially if you consider that pack failure or the need to be constantly "careful" about abrasiom kills performance pretty quickly …

remember that yr average BPLer is in no way an "elite" athlete where the small difference will allow him to push himself to the limit (with a few exceptions like certain people on national geographic)

The VX07 material throws a wrench into the whole abrasion equation. In a lab the 70d VX07 Xpac is almost twice as abrasion resistance as the 200d VX21. 90 cycles for the VX07 vs. 50 cycles for the VX21. Obviously these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt since real world conditions are going to be much different then a lab, but its still interesting to say the least.

With that said, I really like Xpac materials for all the above stated reasons. I have been using it in all my prototypes and have been using some of the packs for over two years now. The first packs were made from VX21 and the last couple have been made from VX07 and I have had great luck with both materials.. XPac has alot more pro's then cons when comparing it to materials of similar weight so it has alot less perception/hype then say something like Dyneema Gridstop.

The point of this thread was not necessarily to see what type of material people like, but to better understand why they like certain materials… That's why I titled the form "Material Perception". That's why I compared VX21 to a material of similar weight. Maybe I should of compared VX21 to Dyneema Gridstop since they use the same denier face fabric. Alot of people are going to say there is a weight difference so maybe we should compare the VX07 to the Dyneema Gridstop since they are a more similar weight.. Both materials are "high tech" yet the Dyneema Gridstop is a much more commercialized material. Why? Why is it better then Xpac? What issues does the Gridstop address that the Xpac does not? Are these issues the most plaguing for backpack construction? Why do MYOG pay twice as much for the Dyneema Gridstop as a Xpac? Do backpackers care more how their packs look, then how they perform??

some likely care more about how it looks on paper … just insert the word cuben in there somewhere and youll get the "OMG is the best, worth every $$$$$ extra"

if you use it enough in rough situations, it wont look that pretty in real life anyways …

mr caffin did an excellent SOTM on packs a while back and found little, if any correlation between pack weight and fabrics if i remember correctly

"Also these packs have a smaller carbon impact as they will lasts decades versus crap packs that needs to be replaced every year or two."

Better given the price.

"Do backpackers care more how their packs look, then how they perform"??

Form follows function for this hiker / pack builder.

When I am in the field I want gear that performs and gives me minimal problems if any.

Here is a picture of my purpose built go to pack.

It has a grey VX21 back panel and an orange VX07 front and sides with a 500D black Cordura bottom. It was built to last with a minimum of care in the field. It was also built with the bright orange body due to the fact that I was headed out on the AT in South West Virginia last October during hunting season.

My pack has become affectionately known as the "Great Pumpkin". There is no stealth camping when I'm using this pack.

Looks don't get the job done! A Stillson pipe wrench doesn't look like an Italian sports car but it will get the job done for which it was designed.

Party On,

Newton

"Mystery Ranch uses some of the VX21 in a couple of their packs."

David, you have a Trance – isn't it VX?

I have a somewhat different take on the durability question. In 40 years Of making and using packs, I have used fabrics from 1.9 oz ripstop to 11 oz cordura, and my attitude toward durability is that once you get past 160d cordura, you're into the realm of virtually indestructible for normal backpacking. Unless you are a rock climber or a truly hard-core brush fighter, any pack made from good quality 200d oxford will last almost forever – except, of course, for critters chewing through it. That will happen with anything I've used, though maybe full Dyneema will stop the little rascals.
Anyway, I feel that 200d oxford is really tough. I have a pack made of it that is 30 years old and still going strong. 420d packcloth, if it's good quality (which may be hard to find), will stand up to phenomenal amounts of abrasion even from rough granite.
So my point would be that comparing abrasion resistance once you get up to 200d oxford is sort of a waste of time unless you're making a pack for rock climbing or something else that is similarly brutal on the pack. thus, the other factors, whether weight or waterproofness or structural integrity, can be considered more important.

I do agree that most packcloth and most oxford has poor quality coatings. I have a little bit left from a roll of super K-Kote oxford fabric that I got over 30 years ago. Now that was a coating! To get that good now I think you'd have to go for the heat sealable oxford, which should be even better. Corduras are the worst in that regard, they never have a thick enough coating to deal with the rough texture of the fabric, so pinholes are normal right from the start and get worse quickly.

"David, you have a Trance – isn't it VX?"

The fabric is great.