Anyone else slightly underwhelmed by ULA packs? [crickets chirping]

In particular this point;

"5) The ULA belt is the best lightweight belt around specifically because of the dual buckle arrangement. It lets you tighten the top of the belt more than the bottom, to keep from sliding down over the hips under load."

This is not correct.

The adjustment buckles (upper and lower) are attached to the hip-belt and they loop through the connecting buckle (at the end of the hipbelt). The belt slides through the connecting buckle so in other words it doesn't matter which adjustment buckles you pull on (upper or lower) it will equal out after a few steps.

"In particular this point;

"5) The ULA belt is the best lightweight belt around specifically because of the dual buckle arrangement. It lets you tighten the top of the belt more than the bottom, to keep from sliding down over the hips under load."

This is not correct.

The adjustment buckles (upper and lower) are attached to the hip-belt and they loop through the connecting buckle (at the end of the hipbelt). The belt slides through the connecting buckle so in other words it doesn't matter which adjustment buckles you pull on (upper or lower) it will equal out after a few steps"

Im quite familiar that its one strap.
But no, it does not really equalize out while under tension on me.
It takes a bit of effort to move it back the other way, even when not under tension.

First of all, I appreciate all the helpful comments this post has received so far, but at this point I feel I need to clear a few things up:

1. "The pack is too small for you" theory

My torso size is 18", which is quite small for my height (5'10"). I am nearly always right on the verge between a small and a medium size in almost every pack I've ever tried on, and the same was true for the ULA packs. I either needed the small with the hipbelt adjusted as far down as possible, or the medium with the hipbelt moved vertically up a bit. I like to have the flexibility of a larger pack bag and I've also found that packs that are slightly too large are MUCH better than packs that are slightly too small (but YMMV), hence my choice of a medium pack.

I know I might have seemed slightly naive in my first post, but I was just trying to be humble. I know how to size a pack. I have sized packs for myself and for others for well over a decade. I am not getting my sizes wrong. Not sure what else to say about this.

2. The "You probably don't like the ULA packs because they don't have all the do-dads and extra junk found on most packs at REI" theory

I like a pack that is functional and well-designed. If there is something extra on a pack that is unnecessary then I generally prefer to take it off as long as that is possible without too much trouble. I am most certainly not attracted to packs that have a ton of extraneous feature that I don't want, don't need, and only add to the weight. In short, I think this line of reasoning does not apply to me, so you can rest assured that it is not coloring my opinion of the ULA packs.

With that said, I will gladly accept a weight penalty for a pack that has really nice suspension, but that's just me. If you want to nail me on anything, this is it. When a pack gets over 15 pound, then I immediately want 80% of the pack weight on my hips. That's just me, and I realize that I'm probably in the minority when it comes to this.

3. The "Packs stays should never, ever be shaped by the manufacturer because everyone's back is different" opinion

I see the reasoning in this argument, and I simply respectfully disagree. It is true that everyone's back is different, but they are not THAT different. Therefore, manufacturers, in my opinion, should go ahead and modestly shape suspension stays whenever possible to GENERALLY fit most backs, without doing anything too severe. This allows each user to tweak the stays if need be to suit his/her needs, but doesn't necessitate that they start from scratch. Look at all Osprey, Gregory, etc… ("big brand packs") and you will find that nearly all of their stays are pre-shaped. Some of you may hate this, and turn to ULA instead. I get it. But my argument is that for the vast majority of people (including myself), a moderate amount of pre-shaping goes a long way in making a pack much more comfortable right from the get go without a whole lot of fuss.

This is just a difference of viewpoints though, so to each his own. The point I was trying to make is that the fact that ULA does not pre-shape their suspension stays even the slightest bit is a big downside for me personally. YMMV.

4. "You can't get a very accurate assessment of a pack just by carrying it around the store for 2 hours"

Of course, this is correct. But I still stand by the idea that you can get a pretty good rough estimation of how a pack will or won't fit you, and my point was that I would most likely choose another pack over a ULA based on my in-store experience. I do not, and will never claim to be an expert on ULA packs without actually giving them a long-term try.

I simply wanted to relay my initial impression that I wasn't very impressed by the packs, simply because this kind of dialogue seemed to be almost completely absent from BPL until my thread post, and I wanted to get a healthy conversation going that wasn't just the same old party line of "ULA packs are the best thing since sliced bread" that we've all been hearing up until this point.

I have no doubt that ULA packs are quite excellent for some people… and for all the people that don't like them, they can take solace in this thread! :)

Other than shoes packs are the most personal fit items youll buy

What works for one sucks for another

The ONLY way to tell is to walk around for hours with weight inside

Some people on BPL give that caveat … Others just cheerlead the latest cottage pack

There have been enough stories of BPLers not having this or that pack working for them despite all the online hype

;)

By the way,
For those of you who complained of the Ohm (or any other hoop framed pack) being squeaky, you might try wrapping the suspension hoop with a thin layer of tape. This is assuming that the squeakiness, in your case, is being caused by the hoop and the surrounding fabric sleeve rubbing together and not the hoop rotating at a joint (which is a harder fix I think, maybe lubrication would work?)

Anyway, I use Tyvek tape, but I'm sure electrical tape, leukotape, athletic tape, or just about anything else might help with the problem. This has at least worked for me in my one hoop-framed pack that I've tried it on, so maybe it will work for you too. Certainly doesn't hurt to try, as you can always just peel the tape off later.

"The point I was trying to make is that the fact that ULA does not pre-shape their suspension stays even the slightest bit is a big downside for me personally."

Are you sure this is true for the Catalyst you tried? My Catalyst (2013) arrived from ULA with significantly shaped stays:

What Eric said. Just because a ton of people find a given pack perfect doesn't mean that someone can't find it, and legitimately so, a terrible match for them. On the other hand, the inverse is also more than true, something the OP should also think about.

I also agree with Eric you can't be %100 sure until you have used a pack on a longish trip. That said, you often CAN tell if it is the WRONG pack without too much work.

I'm kind of with the OP on at least having pre-bent stays, to get you in the ball park. The Kalais stays were pre-bent and the were pretty damn close to my fit right from the start. Since I bought my P2 more than a decade ago I don't have experience with the new ones, but seem like people are saying they ARE slightly pre-bent. If that is the case is it possible the store got a shipment of packs with straight stays? Either way, bending them is the only way to get a perfect fit, and it is well worth the effort IMO. It only take a heavy table and some patience to get the the contour perfect.

"FWIW, and I apologize for the topic movement, I just received my new McHale pack – which totally blows away any other pack I've seen. Amazingly versatile, with brilliant yet simple innovations to make the hike more enjoyable! The man is a genius! The McHale pack does indeed make my ULA look like a pack from a different century!"

Steven, can you maybe post some pics or something in a new thread. I feel like I need to know myself in some deep philosophical way before I can deserve such a pack – let alone be able to order one correctly, and not appear like an idiot or a jerk. I need either have a satori moment of a near-death experience…or something. Right now I just have to live vicariously thought other people until I build up the nerve. ;-)

"Are you sure this is true for the Catalyst you tried? My Catalyst (2013) arrived from ULA with significantly non-linear stays"

Dan,
That's interesting. The short answer is that I'm not 100% sure for the Catalyst that I tried on since I didn't actually take the stays out of the backpack. What I can say is that they sure felt like they were flat, but maybe they just had a really mild (at least in my opinion) curve like what you have shown.

I can say with relative certainty that the Circuit carbon fiber hoop struts were straight as an arrow since the curvature (or lack thereof) of those are pretty easy to assess visually from the outside of the pack. Still, can't say for certain if there was a prebend or not on the middle aluminum stay of the Circuit– but if there is, then it was also very, very slight IMO.

Either way, I guess the bottom line is that the stays were too flat for me, even if they might have technically had a slight prebend to them that I wasn't seeeing. If the stays were pre-bent, then I certainly couldn't tell.

Use of the term "HYPE" by the OP suggests that ULA's well earned reputation is undeserved.

"I tried it. It didn't work for me." is entirely different than, "All those people are nuts because it really does not deserve the praise it gets"

– Just an observation

Hype can have either a neutral or a negative connotation when describing something that is intensively publicized or promoted. I meant it in the neutral sense.

Sorry if there was ambiguity about this.

If you read my previous posts carefully, it will be immediately clear that I am not trying to bash ULA here, but rather sharing my own experience/impressions trying out a few of their packs that ultimately didn't end up suiting me.

"I can say with relative certainty that the Circuit carbon fiber hoop struts were straight as an arrow"

They are supposed to be. A.) as a function of carbon fibre, it gains its strength vertically and B.) the upper portion is intended to flex with the load lifters and shape to your upper back, which is really where most people require it.

External pack frames, which one can argue are the best for transferring weight to the hips have completely vertical frames. Completely vertical.

Your issue is clearly that you tried on a pack that was too small in torso length. Not sure if you are aware but the belt on the Circuit and Catalyst is adjustable in height by as much as 3" so you can effectively lengthen or shorten the torso size. Even with the Ohm, I can get 90 percent of the load on my hips.

The second thing you should be concerned with is frame stiffness and for lightweight packs, both have very stiff frames.

I believe you may want to read some of the articles here on BPL on pack design and functionality and as well, email Chris at ULA to ask him some questions about fit so as to not come to conclusions about the packs that you would not otherwise come to with full information on how to fit a ULA pack.

For the record, I'll need to take the Ohm 2.0 on several more trips before I would feel comfortable giving it a full review. Consider anything I say here to be my initial impressions of this pack. I have a little under 100 miles with it so far.

I don't expect for ULA to be the perfect pack for all people. I only own the Ohm 2.0 and have no experience with the two packs you tried on. I only know one person locally who has even heard of ULA so I was sol to try and see one before I ordered it.

I assume that the carbon fiber stays for the Ohm are similar to the ones on the Circuit. With the Ohm 2.0, when I cinch down the load lifters and tighten the chingaderas near the hips, the pack is perfectly spot welded to my back.

My daughter has the Ohm 2.0 as well. She just turned 13 and carries total pack weights up to 15lbs. I don't go much above 22lbs. We both agree that with this pack, you almost forget that it's there. The weight transfer to the hips is nearly perfect.

My daughter ended up turning her ankle on the Wonderland and I transferred 90% of her gear to my pack including her Kelty Down Cosmic Cloud sleeping bag which is bulky compared to higher quality down sleeping bags. I had a ton of room to spare and the increase in weight was barely noticeable.

When I transferred all of her gear over to my pack, I still didn't need to utilize the expanding capabilities of the draw cord top. My rain shell is strapped to the top so that's why it looks taller than it should.

.

No disrespect to the OP but if someone has filled a Circuit to capacity, there's a problem with the gear list not the pack imo.

I appreciate that you shared your initial impression of this pack. If it's not for you then it's not for you. I'm certainly one of the people who are willing to give his ULA pack some hype because with my limited experiences with it, the praises are well deserved.

I used a CDT on my last thru-hike. Best pack I've ever owned. Comfortable, distributed the load well, held up great.

There can be a bit of a learning curve with a pack, even for experts, little tricks on how to load and adjust the pack that make all the difference.

On long straps: I've made many wildland firefighter packs. One thing you learn is to make the straps "way too long." What's "way too long" for some people is barely long enough for others. Much depends on the size of the person and the load. A few inches too long isn't a big deal. A few inches short can be. The user can always cut off extra strap if they want, something I do only after carrying the pack many miles with the biggest load I'll be carrying.

Re: "External pack frames, which one can argue are the best for transferring weight to the hips have completely vertical frames. Completely vertical." Even the Zpacks Arc Blast?

Got a Circuit in 2009. On the first couple of trips it felt amazing when I compared it to a traditional-style ten year old cheap workhorse backpack that I used mainly traveling (non-wilderness) around the world. Functional, comfortable and light.

After a couple of more short trips the Circuit felt too big, unreliable and too complex with all the hundred long straps. The carbon fiber stay broke (don't know how or when exactly), both of the sewn-in cord loops that held the side pocket cord-locks came off, a stitched seam started unraveling somewhere…

Took off the hip-belt, back panels and the carbon loop, fixed the stitching, cut all of the extra webbing. Result: Awesome! Really nice for shorter trips. Started liking the pack again.

Attached hip-belt and the back panels back on. Packed two weeks worth of food, fishing equipment, etc. Max pack weight maybe 18 kg (40 lb). Worked perfectly the entire trip WITHOUT the silly carbon fiber stay (20+ mile days). Really liked the pack ever since that trip.

Now, after some 500+ miles with this pack, my opinions:

* I trust the pack, although there were non-catastrophic MINOR issues with it. I've checked it all over and feel confident that there will be no serious issues with anything coming off.
* The materials are just right for me. Robust enough but lightweight.
* The design, all the pockets, layout, etc. is good and usable. Could perhaps optimize away a strap or two.
* The hip-belt is really good and comfortable. The pockets are the best I've ever seen on any pack.
* I can carry up to two weeks worth of food and gear with it comfortably. The first couple of days it is FULL.
* The pack scales down well on the trip from 10 kg+ food to zero food carried.
* The carbon fiber stay is silly, unnecessary and the pockets the ends go into are too shallow: one of the ends came out from its pocket once.
* The long straps are a non-issue: just cut them to the length that suits your use.
* Hip-belt: having a total of four webbing ends dangling from the belt is actually a good feature as they are half the length compared to the traditional belt design, so they stay out of the way better.
* The belt being separately adjustable for the top and bottom part is nonsense: it is a single piece of webbing going freely thru the buckle and connecting to triglides at each end. It makes no difference which end you tighten, it will even out at the buckle. However, it would be trivial make it separately adjustable by sewing the webbing to itself around the buckle!
* (edit) Correction to above: tested the hip belt a bit and the separate top vs. down adjustment may actually work if the belt is not allowed to slide up or down and is tightened properly (quite tight) along the natural shape of the hip.

What could be better:

* More of an annoyance, but the vertical compression straps could perhaps be something simpler. Maybe just a dry-bag style rolltop closure. They do, however, make a difference when the pack is extremely loaded by stabilizing the whole thing.
* Aluminum hoop stay instead of the carbon fiber nonsense.
* There's something not quite right with the shoulder strap webbing just below the load-lifters. The webbing tends to sometimes slip off the shoulder straps.

Haven't checked the options out there quite recently, but sometime ago there really wasn't anything out there on the market that I'd consider as a possible replacement for 10+ day self-supported trips.

I've also used Six Moon Designs Swift, which is a fairly nice pack. The hip belt is not very comfortable and the materials are not robust enough for me. Had a near-catastrophic failure with its alu hoop stay pocket digging a small hole into the back panel. The lateral pull from the hip belt caused the hole to expand into a long tear in the back panel, which I was able to mend and resume the journey. I like the simplistic design. A version with stronger materials would be nice.

I also have tried an old Gossamer Gear Gorilla that I got cheap off ebay. Completely rubbish. The design is all wrong and the materials don't feel right. Shoulder straps are angled wrong, which is probably the biggest issue. Velcro loops on the inside of the shoulder straps digs into your neck (why they have pockets in the first place is beyond me). The long vertical compression strap is difficult to use. Does not feel comfortable on my back even with light loads. I assume the current GGG, which is a completely different design, would probably work better for me.

YMMV. I mainly hike 1-3 week long unassisted off-trail trips in the Scandinavian Lapland, so I value robustness and light weight for longer trips. A long thru-hike with a light pack and supply depots every few days is a different game that I know nothing about (yet!).

Cheers!

"Re: "External pack frames, which one can argue are the best for transferring weight to the hips have completely vertical frames. Completely vertical." Even the Zpacks Arc Blast?"

Worst design I have seen in awhile.

Re: "External pack frames, which one can argue are the best for transferring weight to the hips have completely vertical frames. Completely vertical."

My old external frames were not completely vertical. They had a "S" curve to them. I just went out to the garage and checked to make sure I wasn't getting senile! Yup, my old REI external frame has a shallow but definite "S" curve, more accentuated at the bottom than at the top.

Are you thinking of the new "external" frames with a couple of carbon wands stuck on the outside of the bag as being external frames which are "best for transferring weight to the hips"? I'm not sure I'd categorically agree with you, but I bet if the manufacturers of those packs would make those carbon wands curved in a second if they could do it without incurring major costs! Why? Because it works better and is more comfortable!

I can remember carrying an old trapper framed pack – the external frame was made from 1x wood, with absolutely no curve to it. Very painful! Dug into my hips (I rounded off the end of the frame piece, but it didn't help much) and hung off my shoulders despite a belt – no padding, just an old leather belt! Heavy as well. But for awhile, it was the height of backpack (rucksack) technology.

Enough reminiscing! ULAs are great packs, and light years away form the old trappers!

"I can say with relative certainty that the Circuit carbon fiber hoop struts were straight as an arrow since the curvature (or lack thereof) of those are pretty easy to assess visually from the outside of the pack. Still, can't say for certain if there was a prebend or not on the middle aluminum stay of the Circuit– but if there is, then it was also very, very slight IMO."

Yeah, already covered. The carbon fiber hoop keeps the pack up and gives load lifters something to pull against. It is outside of your back, doesnt contact it, you wont feel it.

The aluminum stay is pre-curved, I guarantee it. You just didnt pull it out to look at it, and it must be bent to match your lower back for a good fit.

The Circuit is best always with the belt in the lowest position. Raising a belt is not the same as shortening a pack, it really makes it less comfortable, and leaves it hanging too far below the waiste where it digs into your butt.

Any pack that only comes in 3 sizes, is not going to fit everyone well either, and that is true of any manufacturer.

Stephen, my old Kelty is completely vertical. I believe the Camp Trails were as well.

Of course, the best heavy hauling frame available is from Mystery Ranch and is an external and is vertical….

http://www.mysteryranch.com/hunting/nice-frame-packs/nice-frame-pack

REI is sort of the Walmart in gear offering and I was speaking specifically to better products. I would live to see a picture of an external with a curved spine similar to even what Dan posted above.

Off-the-shelf pack solutions are just like buying shoes. Different experiences for different people. Almost all UL packs are off-the-shelf (sized S, M, L, etc.) other than customization with accessories. Very few companies will build a back to fit you EXACTLY. I actually only know of one (McHale), although Zimmer might.

I have owned an Ohm v1 and a Circuit (no frame). They didn't work for me, but they are both popular packs. So I won't degrade them. They were just inconvenient to live out of, given my style of trail life. I also own a Mariposa Plus with a hoop frame.

Internal frame packs need to have adjustable stays and the owner needs to know HOW to adjust them; and most of the UL stays are going to compress with much of a load. Hoop stays are almost impossible to adjust equally on each side while keeping the top part aligned.

I wonder if people are truly comfortable when they need to carry stuff for extended trips, or if they talk themselves into believing so. When you approach 30 lbs, no UL pack has worked for me.

I have a large curved back. So my heavier quality McHale stays are adjusted with the guidance of Dan and do not compress under a load.

McHale stays from my LBP 36. The stays in my Bump are identical in length and shape.

Regarding externals. Sorry – good ones had "S" curvature.

Above: Red pack is a Kelty Serac with the mountaineer frame. I purchased it in 1973. Bottom pack is a Kelty D-4 with the standard frame. I purchased it in 1971. I also have a B and C model from the 60's with the standard frame. Same identical frame as the D-4.

Every third post on packs by Nick is a Mchale reference. LOL, just kidding. I can't reference 1973 as I wasn't born yet. Tee, hee. But have a look at Mystery Ranch for a modern external. If you are referencing that little bend at the top of an external frame which is much taller than one's shoulders, that hardly constitutes the "s" curve of a stay which is curved in a general sense to the shape of a human's spine. That bend at the top is to make the load lifters functional on an external.

Would you call this an "s" curve?

Yes, I would call it 'a shallow but definite "S" curve, more accentuated at the bottom than at the top'. And yes, the Mystery Ranch frame is very minimally curved at the top. But it's still an "S" curve. Try laying a straight edge along it and see how many points on the frame will contact the straight edge at one time – a lot less than "all".

And Nick's internal stay bends the same directions as the external frame – just more so at the top, and in a wider arc at the bottom – like the REI and Kelty frames when he and I were beginners at backpacking.

"And yes, the Mystery Ranch frame is very minimally curved at the top. But it's still an "S" curve"

Really?

Sorry, I can't see the actual frame of the brown one you just posted, but the green frame in the post above does indeed have a shallow "S" curve, exaggerated at the bottom of the frame.

I have an Ohm 2.0 which has very straight (carbon wand) frame stays. It carries relatively light loads beautifully. I would not use it to carry the heavier loads I carry when i take my grandkids out. The Catalyst with its curved (by me) aluminum stays does that just fine.

The old trapper pack had exceptionally straight frame. It was horrible! Not all due to the frame, but it sure didn't help.

It's quite possible I am more sensitive to this issue than others in that (being old and decrepit) several years ago I had a 15 week period of excruciating back pain where I could barely support myself standing. After building back up to enough strength to backpack lightly, I remain very sensitive to just how a pack fits my back and how well it distributes weight.

May you enjoy your straight framed packs, may your back never falter, but do stay away from the old trapper design!