ULA Arctic 1000 Packs

Two question about sizing.
The Arctic pack description only mentions torso length sizing but says nothing about the hipbelt sizing. Is there any info on that?
About the torso length, how accurate are these in ULA-packs? Is an M pack with a 18-20" torso range OK for a person with a 20" back or is it better to size up to a size L pack. I've read reviews from people who had to buy a larger pack (not necesarily ULA) than based on their measured torso length because the packsize which corresponded with their back length was actually too short.

How about some more photos – especially some of the frame and suspension system, as these will stay the same while the dry packs themselves are interchangeable.

Is the suspension system adjustable or fixed?

Thanks.

I am on Brian's list if memory serves; please put me on Ryan's list as well.

Ryan,

Any word on when pre-purchase for the Artic Dry Pack will begin?

The first production run for Arctic Dry Packs will be shipped "around" June 1, give or take a week or two, depending on the degree of overlap with the Cocoon shipment, which is (gasp) expected to arrive somewhere in there as well.

They will be open for prepurchase early next week, probably sometime Monday…

Ballpark for Members will be $300ish and will include both 50L and 65L dry bags. Those who have signed up for stock alerts will be alerted when the prepurchase sale is activated.

Not all of the inventory will be made available for prepurchase. If you don't get in on the prepurchase, we'll make the rest of the inventory available after prepurchase inventory has been shipped – but as you know from previous history, that will be a free for all.

Consequently, the prepurchase will only be available to Premium Members.

Ryan,
if you could start prepurchasing at the same hour as you posted your message, I will be right at my desk so I can order directly :-)
Just a few follow-up questions:
* how accurate is the framesizing? Just to be sure that for my 20" back a medium is certainly right and that I don't need to size up to a L.
* could you give an idea of the hipbelt sizing?
* are you able to post a few more pictures? It would be helpfull if I had an idea of the pack from different angles (front, back, sides,whichever angle you can think of) before having to make a definite decision.

Buying a pack online (and certainly a large volume pack with an internal frame) is not the same as buying a titanium cup or spoon. I always tell people that there are two things for which fit is absolutely crucial and for which you have to go to a store to try as many as you can to find the right fit: shoes and packs. Buying a pack online without having tried it before is a bit contradictory to that. Adding the fact that I have to include transatlantic shipping costs, import duties and VAT, this pack will be expensive enough that I want to maximise the chance that the pack fits about right and is what I exspected it to be.

I suspect that the sizing (correct me if I'm wrong, Ryan, Brian, etc.) may be very similar to the the largest ULA packs, particularly the ULA Catalyst pack. The Arctic Pack seems to share a lot of similarities to the suspension of this pack.
http://www.ula-equipment.com/sizing.htm
I would also email Brian Frankle of ULA ( who is making the Arctic Packs) w/ this question.

My 22 1/2 " torso fits like a glove with the ULA size large pack I own. On the older ULA packs, particularly the discontinued P-1, some people would go up a size as they thought the sizes were running a bit on the short side. I think this has changed on the current ULA offerings.

Although what will be offered to us is somewhat different from the packs that Ryan et al used on the Arctic 1000, you might want to check out the pictures of that original prototype—-
http://www.ryanjordan.com/2006_arctic/2006/05/backpacks_for_a.html

Notice in the picture of the suspension, that there does not appear to be any "lift straps" on the shoulder straps. I wonder if this will be true on the production packs.

Kevin-

Thanks for the explanation. Spot on. MD is 18-20", LG is 21-23".

The pics of the original AP that Ryan took to AK does not have load lifters as that was what Ryan requested for his own pack. The updated, BPL version DOES HAVE load lifters from the shoulder straps to the top of the pack and they align with the twin stays.

Brian

Thanks Brian,
what about the sizing of the hipbelt? With a Catalyst you could choose your hipbelt size which I guess is not possible with the Arctic pack. Does this have an impact on the sizerange or does a medium frame pack have a medium hipbelt with 34"-37" range?

You can't really make a pack to fit a "range" of torso sizes and not have load lifter straps. "Load lifter" is sort of a misnomer, the reality is that it provides the ability for some torso length adjustment.

Everyone note the new pricing data—-
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/ula_arctic_dry_pack.html

anyone scared off? >;->

Ryan,
Could you explain how load lifters provide the ability for some torso length adjustment?

Henry –

Load lifters attach to the shoulder strap at the virtual "crown" of the strap (at the top of the shoulder). Consequently, by adjusting the length of the load lifter strap (via the ladderloc use to attach the load lifter strap to the pack near the location of the top of the frame stays) and the location of the point at which it attaches to the shoulder strap (via the sliding loop that attaches the load lifter strap to the shoulder strap), you can effectively control the height of the crown relative to its distance from the hip belt centerline.

Kevin,

It's too high for me to consider further. I like trying out new gear and clothing, but the price is too high for me to consider further. I suspect others may be in the same position too. It will be interesting to see what others think of the pack when they get it.

Craig

Very interesting. I wish I could afford it but I can't justify the cost for the small amounts of backpacking I do in the conditions that require it. Maybe in the future though…

Comparing the Arctic to the ULA Catalyst, which looks like an excellent pack, (and I realize this is apples to oranges, a bit), it seems one doesn't give up too much to gain the Arctic's water resistance. Of course, there is a price difference. Can anyone comment on this?
I.E., the Catalyst weighs 43 oz and has a capacity of 4600 cu in, 2600 of that in the main body, and the Arctic weighs ~42 oz with the 65 L bag, for a capacity in the bag of ~4000 cu in, plus whatever one stuffs in the various other pockets (probably at least 600 cu in?).
Perhaps the Catalyst carries better, or is more durable?

Good question, James. The primary reason is that we're doing a limited production run for the Arctic Dry Pack, so economies of scale have not been realized. Maybe in 2008? We'll have to gauge demand on this one I suppose.

Thanks Ryan for the quick reply. I'm sorry I was a bit ambiguous there. I didn't mean to call attention to the price difference, that actually seems quite reasonable, given the Arctic's small product run and features. What I was really asking, was, cost aside, why would one not prefer the Arctic to the Catalyst?

No worries at all.

Part of the price is in the 2 dry bags. I think if the pack wasn't shipped with dry bags we'd bring it down into the $259 range (members) but being able to buy both for an extra $40 (MSRP $64) seemed like a better way to go than offering them separately at MSRP or close to it.

OK, so why might one prefer a Catalyst over an Arctic? Brian is the best one to articulate the benefits of the Catalyst, I haven't used one. But, just on the surface:

The Arctic doesn't have side pockets;
The Arctic has a lot of orange in it (but we'll be offering other colors for replacement dry bags this fall);
The Arctic may be more difficult to use than the Catalyst because it has a packbag that is separable from the harness and thus is not a "one piece" pack;
The Arctic is more expensive;

Like I said, I haven't seen the Catalyst yet so there may be harness/load carrying differences.

Personally, I think a $75 premium over the Catalyst for a pack w/ it's particular feature set w/ such a relatively small productiion run is not such a big price to pay.
At least, that's what I'm telling myself.

Will trade BPL ranking Points for $. :-)>

Yes, I agree with Kevin. And if I can find a buyer for a used pacemaker, I'm in. Besides, all that orange just makes recovering the body that much easier.

When I saw the price I had to give a big gulp. While I have been wanting one of these ever since I first saw them last June and had my name on Brian's list from the very start no matter how I think about it I just can't justify the price to myself. I do think that as a limited production item the price is reasonable, but just not within my budget range.

I guess this is more incentive to get my own design finished… it's transmogrified into a harness/ sleeping mat using the idea of the sleeping mat as a structural element in the pack design. It solves the Arctic pack's problem of no side pockets for water bottles by using a removeable strapping and waistbelt system which in itself is a wraparound pocket that can be used as a waistbelt pouch. The design even offers a rudimentary top pocket which can be used as a fixed pillow when the mat is laid out. And since I am also designing a hammock/ bivy and want to be able to suspend all my gear I've figured out that you can set up a POE drybag as a gear hammock just like Just Jeff's design. When there are no trees the drybag, as Ryan did in the Arctic, is big enough to be used as a ground cloth. All this sounds really complicated, but actually it's only three elements.

Still, I think I'm going to regret not buying the Arctic pack…

What has me looking at the Arctic pack is the main pack bag volume. I now use a Mariposa for my winter pack and the main pack bag gets packed really tightly. I've been looking for a pack with a larger main pack bag that is a little tougher (without a lot of weight gain) than the Mariposa. I want my gear to all fit easily into the main pack bag with just some snacks, etc. in external pockets. Other LW packs I've looked at specs for don't have the larger main pack bag that I want. Mariposa main bag volume is 2900 ci. The Arctic 65 L dry bag should be around 3900 ci. The Arctic pack is heavier than I'd like and I really love a side pocket I can grab a water bottle out of. (I'll probably attach a side pocket or see if a small bottle will fit in a hipbelt pocket.) I do love that it comes with optional stays. It isn't the ideal winter pack I'd been envisioning – still I've convinced myself I need it. THE KICKER IS that once I started thinking about getting the Arctic pack I felt I needed to figure out more uses for it to justify the price. So, today I ordered an Alpacka raft – LOL! The price of those things far exceeds the pack price.
I'm definitely in the grip of gear frenzy! And I can't wait to try out my new packraft!

FWIW,

I have used a Catalyst and a Gust for winter/wet weather. One of the things I honed in on when deciding to purchase to Arctic Pack was The absolute water tightness in all conditions (I think Roman wrote about it). If I end up in 4 days of solid rain or a combo of rain and snow, I have ABSOLUTELY NO WORRIES about my stuff getting wet in an Arctic Pack. For me, the insurance of dry gear when I abslutley need it most is worth twice the cost of this pack. Under my current scenario, the Gust or Catalyst certainly fulfill the need, but the fuss factor when adding a rain cover or internal liner system lends itself to gear getting wet over a period of sustained rain or snow (at least for me it does!).

In addition, the ability to compress the system is really cool. Like Carol, I may add a side pocket or two if I feel the need – the weight would be negligible. But having used the Catalyst, the hip pockets are really big, and assuming I can put a 2 liter platy betwen the harness system and the dry bag, this pack is pretty much plug and play for me – no modifications needed.

I may end up selling my Catalyst once I get the Arctic Pack, FYI.

Mike

In an earlier post I referred to the orange color of the pack body making it easier to find, (if it got separated from the harness). It's an unlikely scenario, but it got me thinking. If one had to cross a narrow lake one couldn't ford, could one put everything into the pack body, including the pack harness, ones clothes and shoes, then inflate it, and swim across, either towing it, or even using the flotation to help in the swim. Would this be placing too much trust/load on the pack body seal?