How Packs Work

[Stephanie Jordan]

Companion forum thread to:

How Packs Work

[Stephen Barber]

" if someone were to produce an external frame pack that weighed two pounds or less, would members of this forum consider it? Oh wait, even more: how many members of this forum have even used an external frame pack?"

Absolutely! My wonky back insists that I keep weight off my shoulders and on my hips. My UIA packs do a great job of that, and frameless packs, even at "light" pack weights of 15-20 lbs are a nightmare for me. An external frame pack at 2 lbs would definitely be worth a try.

And yes, I've carried External frame packs for years! My favorite was a Trailwise (? – the Colin Fletcher liked), but it was stolen decades ago, and I was unable to get another. Having started with canvas rucksacks, I still remember my joy and amazement at trying on an old Kelty with a HIP BELT! That was a wonderful experience! :)

[Anonymous]

"It does not have to rely on load transfer to the hips either, which is fortunate as I don't have much in the way of hips to support it."

Hi Roger,

I'm a bit confused. Does this mean you are carrying the entire load on your shoulders? Up to 45 pounds? If so, you can add the honorific "gnarly" to your curmudgeonly persona. ;0)

"I just don't find the fad of frameless packs to be convincing…."

+1 The benefits of a stay system of some kind, either internal or external, seem pretty obvious to me, but then I guess I'm sort of feminine in that I don't tolerate weight on my shoulders very well.

Cheers

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

" ..if someone were to produce an external frame pack that weighed two pounds or less, would members of this forum consider it?"

ULA Ohm? Great pack. Popular yet still underrated. Carries so much nicer than a HMG Windrider which gets all the press these days.

[Ken Thompson]

Ohm has the frame inside now.

[James Marco]

Load Lifters and some sort of support frame are needed with most packs. For pack loads of less than 10 pounds, you can probably skip them, since the pack itself, when compressed supplies enough support. Load lifters are not needed unless the loading exceeds the height of a frame used to support it.

The stiffness of the frames makes a huge difference in the performance of a pack. For anything up to about 25#, a fan folded pad works well as an internal frame. For loads up to about 35 pounds, a stiffer frame is wanted. Plastic or metal frame sheets, stays, etc can all be used depending on the load to be supported. For heavier loads an external frame is likely wanted.

Most lightweight, UL hikers or through hikers rarely reach 35 pounds. The exception is during desert hiking where large amounts of water are needed. Each gallon(US) weighs about 8-1/4 pounds or so. It is relatively easy to have a low base weight, fuel and food of about 20 pounds and still carry a 45pound pack. An external frame makes sense for these conditions. More normally, water is not a big weight, though. I typically hike through woodlands carrying about 1liter of drinking water. All else is made up as I go at breakfast and supper. I think this is a little low for many, but even two liters would be plenty for most hikers on a day’s hike…about 5 pounds.
Anyway, all packs can benefit from some sort of frame. A light internal frame, such as a frame sheet or pad, works well for light loads. A heavier frame sheet, thicker/stiffer pad, or, stays works better for mid range loads. External frames work better for heavier loads. What is *not* explained when you buy a frameless pack, is this does not save weight in and of itself. Rather, it saves weight *indirectly* by allowing the dual use of a sleeping pad (in whatever arrangement, tube, fan-folded, or structured) as a frame for lighter loads, ie, usually up to 20-25 pounds.

My conclusion is that load lifters are still needed on “frameless” packs for loads of ~20 pounds, because any experienced hiker knows he needs the support of some sort of internal frame. It really doesn’t matter that a pad is used or a “dead weight” frame sheet. The hiker will most likely use some sort of internal frame (or in the case of Gossamer Gear or other packs with pad pockets, a light duty “external” frame.) Load lifters, will help stabilize the load against collapse.
In the case where the shoulder straps come even with the frame, pad pockets or sleeping pad, clearly some compression of the pack will help to maintain stiffness against both front and back collapse as shown.

[David Chenault]

"It's really too bad we can't have the variety of packs available via cottage industry in stores to try out. I have never fitted packs but have fitted running shoes for people thousands of times and there is no replacement for testing side by side and comparing the deviation of every model. Unfortunately, retailers are sticking their necks out to carry that kind of inventory."

Well said sir.

[David Ure]

"Carries so much nicer than a HMG Windrider which gets all the press these days."

Ooh…ya, no.

Generalizations are nasty. Did you not see the posts on fit?

I know you had one of the original ones. The Windriders use the stays from the Porter and even the same belt for the 3400 model.

[Martin RJ Carpenter]

Indeed, especially as its so important and can be so seemingly randomly individual. I certainly find the idea that it can be done using purely back length/waist size somewhat entertaining.

I wonder how many measurements it'd take to get custom packs fitting genuinely well on a reliable basis. Or why I'm a randomly problematic case :)

We actually get vaguely lucky in the UK in that the only people who import some of the cottage industry American packs are an internet based operation who also effectively have a showroom in their warehouse.

So I could, for instance, discover that – the massive range of sizes non withstanding – nothing that ULA did fitted me well…. In fact my main pack for the moment worked much better when I'd removed the lumbar pad and switched to a more flexible back system.

[Jerry Adams]

It would be helpful to try a pack in the store, but

Do you really need to load a pack up and carry it on a trip to know if it's right?

[David Chenault]

"Do you really need to load a pack up and carry it on a trip to know if it's right?"

Yes.

[Jason Elsworth]

"Do you really need to load a pack up and carry it on a trip to know if it's right?"

When buying cottage packs I have resigned myself to having to try them in the field and then sell them on Gear Swap if they don't work out.

[Mary D]

"When buying cottage packs I have resigned myself to having to try them in the field and then sell them on Gear Swap if they don't work out."

I had all my gear, plus a mockup bag (in weight and bulk) of a week's food, ready and waiting when my "cottage" pack arrived. I tried the pack on, adjusted it, loaded it up, adjusted it again, and then took a "hike" around the house for two hours with the loaded pack. I was extra careful to keep the pack clean and returnable. It was a very boring hike, but at least I knew by the end of it (when I was just too bored to go on!) that I had the right pack! Just to be sure, I tried it again the next day.

I felt that it was well worth the effort to keep the pack in new/returnable condition. At least that way, you're only out the shipping cost. If you sell it, you can't get the full price of the new pack.

[Nick Gatel]

Like anything else you need the right tool for the job. I drank the frameless kool aid and it did not taste good. For total loads much above 15 pounds the packs were uncomfortable and fragile to boot. I have gotten my gear weight so low that a couple extra pounds for a real internal frame pack still keeps me well under 10 lbs PBW and often near SUL. Plus I can carry a couple weeks of food and a gallon of water comfortably. No need to frequently interrupt a trip and go back into civilization and muck up my solitude for supplies.

I disagree that all packs need load lifters. If the pack extends much over the torso and if the weight changes the dynamics, then lifters work if they are properly adjusted. Lifters don't work well if they are not connected to a frame extension. I 2nd the comment about checking out McHale's website. I researched for 6 months before buying my LBP and I thought I knew a lot about packs given all my years of experience and research during those years. During the fitting process Dan taught me a lot about packs. The biggest thing was how to adjust the stays… and most important was that his stays are so strong that even though my spine required quite an extreme bend in the stays, Dan's stays will not compress or collapse. Also you will see that his lifter set-up is meant to be removable including the by-pass harness that adjusts the lifters.

My McHale Bump has very comfortably carried 35 lbs and it does not have load lifters. The LBP also does extremely well with the load lifters removed and 35 lbs. This is the most I have carried with either pack.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

"Ohm has the frame inside now."
Normal Ohm is still external. Ohm 2.0 has the frame inside.

"Ooh…ya, no…..I know you had one of the original ones. The Windriders use the stays from the Porter and even the same belt for the 3400 model."
I still I have it. Waterproof is awesome. The stiffer stays are good to hear, as the original ones are much too soft. For whatever reason(s), I have to pull them out to unbend/warp them occasionally.

Regardless of those changes, IMO the stays are located too close to the center of the pack. They don't connect to the hipbelt wings that well, which limits what this pack could otherwise carry.

While I'm critiquing:
– the foam backpad should be removable so it can be fully utilized
– the Y-strap/bear canister system up top is a pain when not carrying a canister and should be removable. I cut it off.
– the internal seam tape peels off over time
– lower side compression straps interfere with side pockets
– the buckles on the roll top should be male on one side, female on other, so you have the option of buckling the top shut to itself (normal dry bag style) without using the side straps. This is needed when pack is very full.

Some pros:
– external mesh is nice and durable
– fabric is great, although non-white would be better (turns brown).
– hipbelt pockets are well done

[David Ure]

"They don't connect to the hipbelt wings that well, which limits what this pack could otherwise carry. "

Don't need to. The belt has rear stabilizing straps that suck the lumbar in.

FWIW, my Mchale pack does not have the belt attached to the frame. This is an internal frame we are talking about. The belt only needs to be attached to the frame for an external.

[Rex Sanders]

Seems impossible to design one pack that fits a wide range of people really well. If you want a pack that works well for you, you need to try a lot (and return or resell a lot), or get a custom pack.

Now I understand why some packs get rave reviews, but I hate them when I try them.

book says:
"I'm curious: if someone were to produce an external frame pack that weighed two pounds or less, would members of this forum consider it?"

Ten years ago I tried the LuxuryLite StackPack (just over 2 pounds), and it was agony for me, even after many adjustments and part rearrangements. Must fit some other people OK because he still sells them.

"Oh wait, even more: how many members of this forum have even used an external frame pack?"

You mean Kelty, North Face, Trailwise, LuxuryLite, and some no-name canvas-and-aluminum pack my mom bought me for Boy Scouts?

Most comfortable pack I ever used, regardless of construction, was an Alpenlite internal frame pack from the early 1980s.

Though my new HMG Windrider 2400 is pretty good fit, too. Got lucky on that one.

[Anonymous]

"Having made packs with all the variations – no frame at all, foam pads, plastic framesheets, stays, and with and without lifter straps, I have settled firmly on lightweight stays and skip the framesheets/pads. 3 oz. worth of aluminum gives me weight transfer far better than any foam pad ever will, plus effective lifter strap attachment points."

Hi Paul,

In this context, what do you think of the OHM/Circuit design? The OHM has been nearly perfect for me, but I'm curious what you think of it's design for a broader set of users.

Tom

[Paul McLaughlin]

Tom – I haven't had my hands on either pack, so I can only comment on what I see in the pictures. I can't tell you what I think of the frame and its load transfer capability.

The one thing I don't like from what I see is that the belt is attached to the sides of the pack. I have found that I get the best performance if the belt attachment points are about 6-8" apart. Wider than that, at least for my average build, and you tend to get gaps at the "corners" – which can only be eliminated by tightening the belt enough to compress the pack contents far enough to get the belt to wrap tightly around the hips. Obviously the degree to which this happens will vary depending on body shape. The Circuit appears to have a narrower attachment, although I don't like the way the attachment is wider at the top than at the bottom. That's the opposite of what I would do.

[Anonymous]

"The one thing I don't like from what I see is that the belt is attached to the sides of the pack. I have found that I get the best performance if the belt attachment points are about 6-8" apart. Wider than that, at least for my average build, and you tend to get gaps at the "corners" – which can only be eliminated by tightening the belt enough to compress the pack contents far enough to get the belt to wrap tightly around the hips. Obviously the degree to which this happens will vary depending on body shape. The Circuit appears to have a narrower attachment, although I don't like the way the attachment is wider at the top than at the bottom. That's the opposite of what I would do."

Thanks for the input, Paul. Grist for my mill.

FWIW, the OHM 2.0 uses the Circuit hipbelt and now attaches closer to the middle of the pack, more or less in the 6-8" range you mention. I have used all 3 versions of the OHM, and found that the 2.0 is by far the most comfortable and effective at transferring the load to my hips. This is a really big deal for me, as I hate weight on my shoulders. So, it seems that they are at least evolving in the right direction, at least for my body type.

[Jerry Adams]

Maybe have the hipbelt be one belt, that goes around your hips

Then, have the pack attach to the hip belt

[Paul McLaughlin]

Jerry – I agree. That's what I do on my lightest packs – make a belt and sew it on. For somewhat heavier loads, like the pack I use for backcountry ski trips, I find a lumbar pad is a good idea, although that can be part of the belt if you want to do it that way. THE most comfortable pack I ever made had the hipbelt one piece, and attached to the pack only by two points at its bottom and one at top center. Involved velcro and webbing and worked great, but heavier than just sewing the belt on, requires a beefier belt construction(and thus heavier again) and makes no difference if the load is under 30 lbs anyway.

[Bruce Kolkebeck]

My advice to folks who are starting out buy UL equipment first and then buy the UL pack. Heavy loads will kill you with a UL pack. Backpacking on my own with my Jam70 is great. At Philmont Scout Ranch last year all the stuff I carried for the crew plus the food and a gallon of water was not UL. It hurt. When I do my thru I'll take the Jam.

BK

[Bruce Kolkebeck]

I just posted a reply to a two year old article. Still a very helpful article.

BK

[Author]

Posts