Pack Weight

The problem with Guinness is after 10 pints you feel like your crapping your 95ltr pack.

I shall say Goodnight as I need to see a man about a dog.

Stephen, fecking hilarious on your last two posts.

(did I use 'fecking' correctly? ;)

Guinness has less calories than skim milk. My life is complete.

I knew you'd like that. Ever drink it out of the can with the mixing ball in it?

You did indeed use fecking correctly Travis.

It means something a bit less than using the proper F word and a bit more than calling someone a Horses chassis.

>Ever drink it out of the can with the mixing ball in it?

Pshhhh, the Widget is the best.

The widget is the work of satan.

After about my 20th pack, I started to use a frameless pack and never went back. If your taking a poll, I think 12-20oz packs are ideal. If you are looking for wisdom, get on the trail.

Stephen,
With all due respect, you're a bit biased, coming from the Guinness Motherland and all. :)

For us Yanks, it's the best we got.

How is it over there?

If only we had a Bpl meet in Ireland.

Damn.

We could, it would cost 600$ from Chicago on sale.

$600? You mean Euro? Roundtrip?

I'd buy a round trip ticket right now for $600.

nm

You can get a 600$ trip from Chi town to Dublin on sale from Aer Lingus.

nm

"But please Dan, tell us which packs can carry 50 lbs for a distance in comfort that weigh less than 3.5 lbs? Your Catalyst? Tee Hee"

Doesnt Mchale himself make 3.5lb packs capable of carrying 50lbs? Sorting through his website it appears.his sub pop pach states it easily handles 40 plus lbs at 3.25 lbs. So by liminting options and making light fabric choices on a Mchale and ou could get a sub 3.5 lb pack carrying 50lbs.

nm

Well this whole thread has been rather strange. The original discussion seemed to be around a typical 1 week UL backpacking trip / thru kie and strayed from there. Of course you are going to use a tool that works for what you need to carry.

"Cesar, I've followed a few of your posts, with fervor. You're what I like to call "one end of the spectrum." "

Thanks, I think :) Glad someone has read my posts with fervor! PM me if you ever have any questions or anything, would be happy to help you out if I can.

"Your carry weight is DEFINITELY in the frameless camp. That's intended as a compliment. I don't know if I'm ready to go that ultralight, ever. Especially not with camera gear."

Thanks again. I didn't think I would ever go UL, let alone SUL and even XUL when I first found this website and started evolving as a backpacker. The biggest thing, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse but it is an important point, is to just get out there and try it. Give self reflection on how things went. What helped me a lot, and I try and do this with many things in life, is to think of a 1-10 scale of "fun" or "experience" on a given trip. With 1 being horrible and a complete waste of time (this I contend does not really exist) and 10 being perfect (again, non-existent). It takes courage and maturity to be able to admit to yourself that maybe what you are doing is a well, let's just say below a 9.

I have written this before, but when I was lugging around a 2kg backpack with a 10kg base weight, looking back I'd say it was around a 6 or 7. It was fun, but I didn't know the potential was there to improve until I let entropy take over, which can be a very good thing so long as you do so sans bad faith. Thing is, you can feel that your experience is a "9" at the time, but then when you try something else that is more of a "real" 9, you realize that you were to an extent wrong or fooling yourself. I am not saying that this is the case with you or anyone else–I speak only for myself.

So do what you think is best for yourself. If you feel strongly enough that using a 5lb backpack is the best possible option, and that your experiences with it are a 9, good for you. But if you try using a frameless pack and lowering your base weight, and give it an honest try, and still feel like the 5lb pack is better–say your frameless UL trip is a 6 or 7 or worse–you can go back to using the 5lb pack and heavier base weight with a much more informed and solid personal conclusion.

"I'm 6'2", 170lbs, athletic but almost all in my legs because I'm a cyclist. My shoulders and back aren't that powerful, just a little rock climbing. I appreciate good pack distribution, especially when I have to carry a little extra."

It makes more sense that you are looking for better distribution of weight. I agree with others that there are packs under 5lbs that probably just as good with dealing with a 30lb load. I would also encourage you to look into functional strength training for your core, back, and shoulders. This you can do without buying any equipment or anything, just do simple body weight training–push ups, pull ups, crunches, etc. I have even loaded up packs with lots of weight by filling them with bottles of water, then doing intense hikes around my neighborhood. If you are really looking to improve functional strength, I am a user and big fan of kettle bells. Just make sure to do research and/or get training on how to use them properly. As a cyclist your legs ought to be solid and you don't have to work them much, especially if you still cycle.

Good luck with whatever you do. BTW, I have an MSR Titan kettle pot and it is in my go-to cooking system. Great piece of gear. Hope the above helps :)

I've read most of this thread, and it's been pretty entertaining. I think what it boils down to is Max, using some tortured reasoning, trying to justify the Baltoro as a "poor man's McHale". It's not really; I've used both and they are totally different packs.
Happy St Pat's-Its sunny and snowy and We're going skiing!

"If you are something less than a skinny, 170 lb person, you may need something with a larger belt and larger shoulder harness and maybe a longer torso. Add in custom fabrics and superior construction and the weight adds up…although I love ULA packs…they are not nearly as robust with the same attention to detail as a Mchale. Truly, a Mchale is an F'ing work of art…"
I'm not trying to debate pack companies here, just pack philosophy. IMO, weight tends to add up primarily because designers try to add every feature to please everyone (ie. Max's pack with at least EIGHT zippers), and secondly, because everything is overbuilt for users who have no concept of taking care of their stuff. Larger harnesses, good fabrics and proper construction don't shift things by more than half a pound normally. IMO, the ultimate pack fabric is McHale's 3.5oz pure dyneema + cuben laminate, which probably weighs 8oz total for enough to make a big pack.

"But please Dan, tell us which packs can carry 50 lbs for a distance in comfort that weigh less than 3.5 lbs? Your Catalyst?"
This thread is (was?) about packs for heavier but not monster loads – maybe 30-40 lbs and not exceeding 50. For this use, there are a ton of great packs from McHale, HMG, Osprey, ULA, Granite Gear etc that are under 3.5 lbs. I'm not going to extoll my 2.5 lbs (size large) Catalyst without using it outside of the living room, but it is one example of a pack that should meet this general use requirement. Considering a 31oz HMG Porter generally accomplishes this task, I think it's tough to argue that nearly doubling this weight (to 54oz) is insufficient to get a solid pack.

"I can also tell you that an extra 1 or 2 lbs means nothing to my fitness and strength level."
The trouble with this argument is that people use it for every decision they make. I'm not saying you do, but I see lots of people saying this and then at the end of the day all those ounces and pounds that didn't matter ends up being 10 lbs that does. It's essentially the traditional backpackers philosophy.

Look what happened to this thread while I slept!!!!

Max, I very much get that you want to learn. You are so in the same place as so many of us when we find BPL, but as Stephen mentioned, you do have a problem with your delivery ;)

We all swear that we would never try this, or never go to that…I thought frameless (or minimally framed) packs were silly, I swore I would never sleep under a tarp, that alcohol stoves were too much work and who wants that?!

Of course now I have a minimally framed pack and loath the idea of getting something slightly beefier for the JMT. I have a zpacks hexamid tent and am seriously considering the trailstar (that looks awesome!) and I don't want to bring my canister anymore because I really really like my caldera cone set up.

The only difference is you are asking questions by (unintentionally?) challenging the choices people make here, while most of us just read and say to ourselves "well that's ridiculous! Why would I ever want such a flimsy pack?!" Then as Cesar said, little by little we reflect on what we really need, start to notice how the lighter weight on our backs really does translate to a better hiking experience, then lo and behold we find what works. I am still looking for that, but I'm getting closer. And my bank account is telling me what I have is just fine thank you very much.

And perhaps the Boreas is uncomfortable because it's not the pack for you? Don't discount ALL frameless packs because one isn't as comfortable as you'd like. Besides, I'm learning that packing technique and skill matters quite a bit here, too.

Now get out there and hike!! If you can run 6 miles, then go hike a few!

"I can also tell you that an extra 1 or 2 lbs means nothing to my fitness and strength level."

Unless you have figured out a way to defeat the laws of physics, you are wrong. That extra weight affects how fast, and how far you can hike. You just dont realize it.

What you are saying clearly, is you dont hike far enough in a day, for it to matter to you. Thats fine for you.

If you have ever been to the point of thorough exhaustion, where you literally couldnt take another step uphill, you would realize it.