Rolled or Folded Ridgerest as Packframe

[Michael S]

Posing a question to folks who have tried both methods and settled on a preferred method…

When using my frameless pack (most trips), I've rolled my Thermarest Ridgerest to create a virtual frame. I'm thinking of trying the folded approach too to see which one I like better. I can see pros/cons to either method, like…

With the rolled method, it creates a sausage looking backpack instead of one that lies more flat on your back. The "contact patch" with my back is much smaller with the rolled approach. On the other hand, I'm not to keen on the idea of the folded approach since this will move the center of gravity of the pack farther away from my back which is not a good thing.

Since both of these methods are quite popular with frameless packs, I'm wondering if you have settled on a preference and why?

[Franco Darioli]

Have you tried folding a Ridgrest ?

[Steven Diogenes]

What Franco said. …but check this out: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/00194.html#.UtDXc_RDuSo

They just the McHale Subpop to see how it performed with the rolled pad or the back panel– and found that "the use of a rolled cylinder vs. a standard foam backpad has little impact on the load carrying performance of this particular pack."

However, when they compared frameless packs with the burrito method, the Moonlight performed better than the others and it was the only using a folded back panel pad.

So take all that for whatever it's worth.

[Jerry Adams]

If you do sausage, it squishes the pack into one solid package that resists torso compression. If you fold, it will have more torso compression.

If you put your tent poles in a sleeve on the front side, have the bottom of the poles in a pocket that keeps it the right distance from the back, have the top of the poles pulled back with webbing and buckle that you tighten, it will pull the poles in to flatten out the back to avoid that sausage:

This also further compresses into one solid package that resists torso compression.

[Steven Diogenes]

Jerry- is that your pack? What's it weigh?

[Brad Rogers]

I have never tried to fold my Ridgerest but I do use it burrito style and I have a Z Lite that I use folded. I prefer the rolled Ridgerest of the two, but it requires a pretty big pack. I use a SMD Swift '10 (frameless, sewn on hipbelt) with it and its a pretty big looking pack. Once I have my Ridgerest rolled up inside I have a 8.5" cylinder inside to pack the rest of my gear.

[Jerry Adams]

16.4 ounces including waist belt

my normal weight limit is 20 pounds, but occasionally I'll do a few more pounds than that, maybe 24. The shoulder straps are probably the weakest link, start digging in at that weight.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/myog_silnylon_backpack.html

Except I added waist belt, use 3D mesh for back, waist belt, shoulder straps

[Hiking Malto]

Back when I carried a ridgerest I folded it into either flat or into a U shape. It is super easy to fold. Score it almost all the thru and fold with the score out.

[Steven Diogenes]

I've thought about scoring it, or even cutting it and reconnecting with tape, leaving a slight gap so they can fold like the Z-Rest… I have the SMD Swift, but unlike the moonlight, it has an internal pad pocket. Maybe I'll try it.

[Daryl and Daryl]

Jerry,

Nice use of the poles as a pack flattener.

[Dale Wambaugh]

If you want folded, consider using a Z-rest.

Other than that, I think it depends on the pack design and how you load your gear. The rolled/burrito method is better for packs with lighter fabric and fewer compression features, helping to fill the whole pack bag and protect it from internal sharp points. The rolled method is also good for packing without stuff sacks, with a trash compactor bag in the center and your insulation and dry clothing stuffed in that.

If you have a pack with multiple compression straps and less fabric stretch and you like separate stuff sacks, then the folded method reduces the lumps and bumps against your back.

With either method, you are trying to make a stable column to get the weight transferred to the hip belt. If the pack sags and pulls away from your back, it is less stable and you end up with more weight and stress on your shoulders. It takes some fiddling and practice– good winter project!

[Jerry Adams]

With compression straps, it's kind of lumpy, more compressed where the strap is, less in between

With tent poles on the front of pack and top of poles pulled in, the compression over the length of pack is uniform

[Jeff Jeff]

I always felt that I couldn't get all my stuff into and out of a pack with a rolled ridgerest (rolled like a large hoop). Folded works better, but I don't like folding a ridgerest. I switched to a z-rest and had much better luck.

Oddly enough, the best thing that works for my ULA Conduit is a 3/4 length Thermarest. It turns out Brian designed it that way!

[MFR]

According to Will Rietveld, who did the most recent State of the Market report on frameless packs, the folded method provides less torso collapse. The full article is quite in depth and provides helpful feedback.

[Link .]

Clayton, your link leads back to this page so HERE is the article Clayton wanted to link(and it is a good one)

[MFR]

Oops! Thanks Anna.

[Daryl and Daryl]

Jerry,

Your pole pack compressor reminds me a bit of this old photo:

[Jerry Adams]

Ha! Good one Daryl. Except the pole against back looks uncomfortable : )

My idea evolved from "Sea Hunt". Lloyd Bridges wore two tanks on back. I made a pack with two tubes, but it was inconvenient to pack, hard to get the two tubes balanced.

Then I had strap inside pack with snap. Snap came undone – not so good idea.

Then I put strap on top. I think influenced by something here or somewhere. That works pretty good. I've been using for several years, maybe 500 miles per year.

[David Thomas]

I had a Great Pacific Ironworks* softpack that was two vertical compartments. You couldn't haul a kitchen sink, but stuff was easier to find and less stuff got unpacked onto the ground than with a single, large bag. It definitely added vertical stiffness when full and that helped because it had no frame, stays or padding.

* for the young'ns: GPI was Chouinard before there was a Patagonia.

[David Chenault]

Folded provides better load transfer than rolled, all other thing being equal (which they probably won't be in the field). If you're folding a full length 48" ridgerest the bulk will be less than ideal.

Best of all is a dedicated sleeve holding a doubled piece of ridgerest in place. It can be inside, and closed via velcro, or outside, and held closed by the straps being above it.

[Art …]

I don't like either the rolled or folded method for my frameless pack.
Both options make the pack too stiff for my liking.
I place what soft goods I have against my back in a way that allows complete contouring of the pack to the curves of the back.
Since I'm not carrying a lot of weight in a frameless I let my shoulders carry 75% of the weight. I do have a waste belt but its mostly for stability.
the significantly cut down Ridgerest gets strapped to the outside.

[Jerry Adams]

There have been a number of ideas how to make back of pack S shaped to contour to shape of back.

But is that really critical?

If your waist belt carries a lot of load, then maybe you want the pack to contact the hips well – sort of a rectangular area against the hips – maybe extending a little above the waist belt.

I guess that doesn't apply so much if the waist belt isn't carrying much load.

And when you carry weight on shoulders, you want good contact on upper back.

Maybe you don't want contact on small of back. If you leave it open, you can get ventilation to reduce sweating.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

I've posted several times over my years on BPL

MY FRAMELESS PACK "FRAME" SOLUTION:

1. Cut a Ridgerest in half (top and bottom halves)

2. Glue strips of 2" wide mating Velcro to join the two halves of the mattress for sleeping.

3. On an existing frameless pack-> sew 2 vertical tubes on the outside of the back (with Velcroed top flaps) to accomodate the two TIGHTLY rolled Ridgerest halves. These tubes can be a strong but soft mesh or an uncoated synthetic fabric. I would prefer mesh for beathability.

4. On a DIY frameless pack-> sew these two "frame tubes" inside the back of the pack.

That setup appears to be the MOST RIGID version of a mattress-as-frame possible. Now true weight transfer to a padded hipbelt is possible.

[Dale Wambaugh]

That gets the gears turning

I wonder if three straps for each Ridgerest column would work.

Also, you could roll the Ridgerest into two rolls like a scroll and use them inside the pack that way. Mesh top and bottom pockets a la the Gossamer Gear back pad could contain the pad rolled in that manner, but inside the pack vs outside. Straps may work too.

[Author]

Posts