Apr 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm #1288557
Seems like a great tough, somewhat waterproof material (not sure what 200psi translates into for real world use), but I'm not finding any packs that use a lot of it. Ideally I'd like something ~50L, internal frame, and under 3lbs.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm #1865885
The only two companies I know of using it are Wild Things and Cilo Gear.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:40 pm #1865889
@glacierramblerLocale: NW Montana
The new Mountain Hardwear Thruway makes selective use of it (VX-40 I believe?). Check out Dave's impressions on it here.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:46 pm #1865893
It's DX-40, but yes, MH and maybe some others are using it selectively in their packs.
Chris Zimmer on here can probably make you something custom as well.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 pm #1865897
Maybe I'm off base here, but I've yet to see another fabric that's as tough, waterproof, and light. I'm surprised there aren't any full x-pac options out there. I love me some bomber, lightweight, (stand-alone) highly waterproof gear.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm #1865900
Nathan WattsBPL Member
I would say Cuben qualifies as tough, waterproof, and light.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:56 pm #1865901
I would say Cuben qualifies as tough, waterproof, and light.
Depends on the Cuben. The material Hyperlite Mountain Gear is using is pretty close to the VX versions of Xpac in regards to waterproofness and toughness for real-world usage. Zpacks is also using something similar in at least one of their packs.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:56 pm #1865902
I would also add spectra, dyneema, and dyneema gridstop in that group.
Mystery Ranch uses X-pac in some of their packs.Apr 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm #1865905
DyneemaX (or gridstop or whatever) is a PU coated fabric and the coating eventually wears off, so at least from a waterproof durability standpoint it doesn't compare to the laminates. I can't speak to woven dyneema (or spectra…same thing) since I haven't seen them in person.Apr 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm #1865908
I'm obviously somewhat of a noob, but Cuben just doesn't strike me as being nearly as tough as x-pac (though it may still be considered tough in the world of ultralight backpacking).
Well, if x-pac isn't an option (outside of $$$ custom), is there a pack anyone is thinking of that's ~50L & is <3lb/internal frame?Apr 10, 2012 at 5:15 pm #1865911
x-pac…stuff's bomberApr 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm #1865913
Eventually can be a long time depending on how long you use the fabric and how you use it.Apr 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm #1865916
It can be for sure, but I've seen quite a few examples with less than a year of use. :-)Apr 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm #1865920
I need to get out more.Apr 10, 2012 at 5:59 pm #1865926
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Simple answer: cost.
There are cheaper fabrics out there.
CheersApr 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm #1865930
Ron BellBPL Member
opps- double postApr 10, 2012 at 6:13 pm #1865932
Ron BellBPL Member
There are a lot of different X Pac fabrics and there are a lot of different type Cuben fabrics.
Perhaps the first thing that helps on comparing pack fabrics is the base weight of the fabric itself. I will generalize the following info so you can see a little of what I mean- of course many pages could be written on this and it would still not be perfectly clear….oh well…
The Dyneema X that we use – and similar dyneema gridstop fabrics used by many others- is about 4oz sq/yd
Some lighter dyneema gridstop is in use at about 3oz sq/yd but it's less than half the strength of the 4oz and really only save a couple oz's in the finished pack.
The Cuben that a few smaller pack makers use is about 3- 4oz sq/yd- but some use heavier styles for some packs – especially burly climbing packs.
The X Pac style used is mostly above 4oz sq yd. except in the MYOG circles.
Overall- each type of pack fabric has it's pluses and minuses- nothing is clearly better in all areas IMO.
A few criterion that go up and down in desirability between them all for an end user includes Durability (tear and abrasion), Water Resistance (either as a coating or other means), Price, Repairability, Color, Sustainability, Cost per day/Service Life. etc.
For a manufacturer also add sewing/construction ability/issues, dependable availability issues and over time the fabrics quality from run to run- I guess those are all mainly price issues for the end user too.
SO, if you take those fabrics in the 3-4oz range as a way to make it more apples to apples- then you can start to see some tradeoffs that make sense. For example , we have made lots of custom packs from X pac but in that weight range we think the Dyneema X is overall better- lot of needle holes in light X pac is problematic for tearing along the lines. The cuben in that wt range is very strong but expensive and I think the abrasion is bit lower until it get to the 4+oz range. Some people think the Dyneema X WP coating wears off too fast- but thats an opinion too- I know many who get multiple thru-hikes out of them just fine.
Personally, I'm thinking that if a UL 16oz $175 pack lasts 2-4000 miles and 100-200 days on the trail ( I know many of our users and other UL pack companies too get that longevity all the time) maybe that's a good deal at a bucka day for a special UL pack. Others may disagree and want 50cent or maybe 10cent per day return on investment.
In general- the heavier the pack the longer it can last assuming the base fabric is heavier and all else on the pack is the same.
For a well made SUL / UL 16oz pack what do you think is a fair cost per day for use over a reasonable service life? $2, $1 , $.50, ?
EX: Would a 6oz overall increase in a 16oz pack weight be worth bringing the avg cost of use per day down $.30?
How about the reverse? Would an increase to $2 per day cost to use be worth a 16oz pack dropping 6oz?
Everyone will have their sweet spot for the equation!Apr 10, 2012 at 6:37 pm #1865941
I understand where you're coming from. I guess my desire for a pack with a burlier fabric doesn't quite fit in to the BPL philosophy. I'm hard on my gear, and often use it when traveling overseas, so to me it's worth it to have something that is less prone to failing in the long & short-term.
For me, x-pac (I believe the DX-40 variety) is the sweet spot. It may not be the lightest thing out there, but I'll take that penalty for improved abrasion resistance and waterproofing.Apr 10, 2012 at 7:39 pm #1865959
Brendan SwihartBPL Member
@brendansLocale: Fruita CO
Add me to those who greatly prefer xpac to dyneema x. I think the ideal pack fabric would be basically DX40 with a lighter face fabric. Maybe 200d dyneema instead of 400d.Apr 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm #1865973
Sam FarringtonBPL Member
@scfhomeLocale: Chocorua NH, USA
Wish you had provided some more detail about the bubbly Xpac you posted.
So far, I cannot find any negatives about the 5 oz. product, VX07, if that is it.
If anyone has given that a run for the money, would greatly appreciate hearing about how well it held up. Thanks.Apr 10, 2012 at 8:33 pm #1865979
Snagged from here:
http://brisbaneoutdoorgear.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html (scroll down past half way)Apr 10, 2012 at 9:19 pm #1865989Apr 11, 2012 at 3:28 am #1866034
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.