What Dan McHale has to say about UL backpacks

[Greg Mihalik]

"I'm curious how many people have ever actually used a framed pack?"

By which I assume you mean an external, ridge, tubular style frame? (Versus the independently sleeved internal stays, or frame sheets)

[J Dos]

I originally posted this link because I have an immense amount of respect for Mr. McHale, both for his outdoor accomplishments and the packs he has designed over the years. And I think it's always interesting to get another perspective on gear.

However, I do find myself disagreeing with his conclusion that UL packs are by necessity uncomfortable. I agree that once you reach a certain weight, 25-30 pounds and over, frameless packs will be uncomfortable for many people, but not all of them. I've talked to too many experienced hikers who have thru-hiked with frameless packs and really enjoyed their trip. I've logged over a thousand miles with frameless packs and definitely think they have a place for certain trips, though I admit, I would not use one for a thru-hike.

For me, my pack is the most intensely personal piece of gear I carry. Even if everybody else in the world loves a pack, that doesn't mean I will. I've tried to eliminate excess gear and own only what I take with me for most trips, but backpacks is where I make an exception. I own several backpacks for several different types of trips. No backpack is the best option for every trip, so understanding what gear you will need, the duration of your trip, and how much food/water you will carry is vital to selecting the right pack for the trip.

If I was doing a winter trip with sub-zero temps, I would definitely carry a more heavy-duty pack capable of comfortably carrying all necessary gear. Ditto if I was doing a hardcore mountaineering trip involving climbs. But most of my trips are in 3-season conditions with a BPW of 7-8 pounds, so IMO, I have no need for a bulletproof McHale pack. For extended trips around 3-10 days, I now use a custom-built Xpac pack weighing ~30 ounces and have had fantastic results with it. For me, this is a perfect blend of weight savings, and having a comfortable framed pack that supports whatever load I decide to carry.

That's what experimentation and experience is all about … self-discovery and knowing what works for you.

[Stephen Barber]

Back in the day (60s, 70s), we pretty much all used external frame packs. I actually started with a frameless boy scout "rucksack", which killed my shoulders when carrying much more than a lunch. My first time carrying a Kelty external was a delight!

Today, with age making its inroads on my body, carrying as light as possible makes all the sense in the world, but I'm firmly with with Derek, Dan McHale and the others who wouldn't even consider a frameless pack for anything but a lunch and notebook. Good structure (ie, a good frame) makes all the difference in the world to me, making any level of load much more comfortable. I would much rather carry 30 lbs all day in my McHale pack, or even in my old ULA Catalyst, than 10 lbs in any of the frameless packs I've used. Like Dan says, the difference between a 11 and 3 pound pack is minimal when you look at the total weight of you and your loaded pack. And weight on the pelvic girdle carries so much better than weight on the shoulders.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

I would never introduce a novice to backpacking by giving them a frameless pack to use for their 1st experience.

By the same token I'd also agree with "hike your own hike" when it comes to gear.

BTW, Osprey agrees with Mc Hale's idea of framed pack comfort v.s. the small weight decrease of a frameless pack.
________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN EMPTY PACK WEIGHT FOR FRAME PACKS:
1. WEIGHT TRANSFER-> A frame pack permits weight transfer to the pelvic girdle and legs

2. WEIGHT RE-TRANSFER-> Frame packs permit weight to be transfered INCREMENTALLY between shoulders and hips

3. WEIGHT BALANCE-> Frame packs usually feature LIFT STRAPS which permit the pack top to be tight against the shoulders or lean away from the back when loosened. The former position when going uphill or in rough terrain, the latter "loose" position for going on long downhills.

4. MUSCLE INVOLVEMENT-> Frame packs permit different muscle groups (back, shoulders, legs) to work more or less depending on adjustment of suspension straps.
________________________________________________________________________________

In short, well designed frames and harnesses do a lot for both comfort and safety (as in properly balancing a load).

AS I SEE IT: There are too many reasons to have a frame pack and only one not to.
Having a frameless (and often beltless) pack is like using hiking poles without the straps.

MORAL OF THE STORY: A backpacker can be "Ounce wise and pound foolish." Or "Gram wise and kilo foolish." – choose yer units.
"There are more types of trail comfort than merely the lightest pack." (I love to quote myself.)

[Tom Clark]

Dan had some good points, but glossed over some other considerations.

– On a multi-day hike, pack weight goes down every day. The pack might start at 30 lbs, but will decrease in weight each day.
– You don't always need two full bladders/bottles of water.
– Why do I want to carry 3-5 extra pounds EVERY day on long hike?
– Many 1-2 night trips I take in summer never, ever go above 15-20 lbs. So…who cares about a pack for >25 lbs.??? Does Dan want to disregard all of those occasions?
– Many thru-hikers do well with lightweight packs.
– Why is he so angry?

I am pretty sure that UL backpacking (BPL) is about trying new things that have worked for others, and finding your own limits.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

I often see hikers justify their heavy packs (3-5 lbs) by arguing against frameless packs, and then jumping to the conclusion that the only good solution is their heavy pack, as if there was nothing in between. Today there are so many great 1.5 – 3 lbs framed packs that there's almost no reason to go over 3 lbs even for decent loads.

It's also worth considering the two ways packs can cause discomfort:
1) A pack can cause discomfort though fit. This is failing to transfer weight, pressure points, chafing etc.
2) A pack can cause discomfort because they are heavy, and even if they fit wonderfully, you're legs still need to carry those pounds up and down every hill and suspend it every mile. This is much of the discomfort you feel at the end of a long day or the next morning.

In my view, you want a pack that sufficiently avoids #1 while minimizing #2. Many people get fixated on #1 and disregard #2.

[Rick M]

del

[David Ure]

I use a frameless pack for loads under 20 pounds mostly because I can't fill it with gear to exceed that level as it is a 35L pack. It works great and allows the pack to 'move' with me. No issues with sore shoulders at all.

Having said that, with loads that exceed the 25lb mark, a frame is nice to transfer additional weight to the hips. Above 30 lbs, and I grab my Mchale. But I should note that the best thing about my Mchale is the P&G load lifter system and how it works with the stiff twin stays and nice wide hip belt. It really is quite special. I think anyone thinking of buying a Mchale should not discount this option. It works well with any load.

[K C]

Here's a funny quote;

"The UL pack industry operates at a pretty low standard of performance, education and practical knowledge."

I think the opposite, I think the UL pack industry operates on performance and knowledge. Every UL gear company makes packs with frames!

[Bob Gross]

" – Why is he so angry? "

He probably feels that the frameless backpack manufacturers are eating his lunch.

Personally, I have not used a framed backpack in 30 years or so, and I haven't seen any need. However, only twice have I attempted to carry 60 pounds or more. Frameless always seemed to work OK.

–B.G.–

[Hiking Malto]

First, the page by Dan needs a serious editing. I couldn't even finish it, way too random. But I do want to address one item in this thread. There seems to be an assumption that frameless packs carryballmthe weight of the shoulders. Some may but most of the weight of my pack is on the hips. Why?
1) I have four bottle pockets on the 1" web belt. That allows up to 6-8 lbs to come out of the main pack.
2) I firmly believe it is better to get a slightly smaller pack and pack it very tight. I have learned to do this and the pack acts like a unibody, a frame is not needed.
3) I normally keep pack weight below 20 but had it as heavy as 30 lbs. at that weight it was not ideal. But everyday 3 lbs went away and it was only uncomfortable one day on a 2654 mile trip.

If others need or think they need a frame then great get a pack with a frame. I have no such need.

[M B]

How much it matters, depends on the weight you carry.

But one thing is sure, you dont need a $600 custom 3lb framed pack, to carry 20 lbs.
The proof is out there everyday.

I do agree with Dan, Im sure it will carry it more comfortably than a sack with a CCF pad.

But that alone doesnt make it necessary.

A Bentley may get you to work in more comfort than a 1993 toyota corolla, or a motorcycle.
But that doesnt make it necessary, or even desireable either.

As long as a given pack, works within someones own comfort limits, thats all that matters.

[Jeffs Eleven]

As usual I agree with Dan… Durston:

"I often see hikers justify their heavy packs (3-5 lbs) by arguing against frameless packs, and then jumping to the conclusion that the only good solution is their heavy pack, as if there was nothing in between. Today there are so many great 1.5 – 3 lbs framed packs that there's almost no reason to go over 3 lbs even for decent loads."

[Luke Schmidt]

The weight difference between a well designed UL pack and a frameless pack of the same size really isn't that great. For example the HMG Windrunner is 28 oz. A frameless pack of similar size and materials might save 8 oz or so but that's it.

To put things in perspective 8 oz would be 2.5% of a 20 pound load and 5% of a 10 pound load.

Personally I like the improved load transfer and fit of a framed pack for anything over 18 pounds. I CAN carry 25 pounds in a frameless rucksack but its not as comfortable. And since I occasionally carry more like 35-40 (dry trips etc.) I've chosen to invest in packs with frames for longer trips. For weekends I still keep a MYOG SUL pack. I was going to redesign it and improve on it but living in West Texas I'm not sure when I'd be able to use it.

[J Dos]

Here's a funny quote;

"The UL pack industry operates at a pretty low standard of performance, education and practical knowledge."

KC,

This quote also grabbed my attention, as I strongly disagree with Mr. McHale about this point. It's sad really that he's willing to completely write off many experienced outdoorspeople just because he disagrees with certain design principles.

Really, after rereading his rant/manifesto/letter, I think he's still caught up in the more is better/heavy hauler mindset that your pack must weigh x amount to be comfortable.

To me, the whole point of the UL movement is using your education and practical knowledge to shed excess weight/gear and perform at your highest level on the trail.

[Rick M]

del

[Randy Martin]

Another element is that the line between framed and frameless is getting blurred. My Arc Blast has excellent structural rigidity and support. It's sorta like a frame with the carbon fiber struts but not completely. Extremely comfortable carrying lightweight loads let alone ultralight.

To each their own. If you are comfortable carrying heavier loads and a heavier framed pack to support that, no worries.

[Marko Botsaris]

"Another element is that the line between framed and frameless is getting blurred."

Also, you could legitimately call the arc blast an external frame pack. LOL So yes, very blurry.

I think there is much merit in a lot of the things he says – I been reading them here and in other places for a while now. Also I'd love to own one of his packs, one I'm absolutely sure what pack I would need for %80 of my trips for the rest of my life.

On the other hand, while I totally buy the definition of the right amount of pack as "the one the FEELS the least heavy on you back for what you are carrying, not the one that is actually the lightest weight", he has some rather conservative rules on the material he is willing to use. He call it the minimum material weight to be "safe". I suppose that there is an issue of long-term durability, but while I'm sure it has occasionally happened, I have never read a post, or heard of a situation arising, where an UL pack so self-destructed on the trail as to present more than a nuisance, let alone a "safety" issues. So that seems like a hyperbolic statement to me, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In my repair kit, for instance, I have everything I need to make major repairs, if necessary, to my pack though I have never had to do much more than slap a patch on a hole or rip while on the trail. If like Dan you are selling packs for 2-4 times what we might call the commercial equivalents, then yeah, anyone spending that much is probably going to place a higher emphasis on being able to pass it down in his/her will.

Though I hear analogous arguments on here all the time, I reject the economy of spending 10 times as much for something that last 3 times as long – e.g. "dryducks ($20) are more fragile so I buy a rain jacket that costs 10 times that because they last longer. They can be repaired in-field with duct tape. So short of cosmetic issues, or you really don't like the feel of them, the argument about them being too fragile is bogus. Likewise when Dan makes packs that are a lot cheaper, I think I would buy the arguments about durability a bit more.

But it is true that if I ever wanted to carry 30+ lbs the backpack I would currently use for that weight about 3 lbs. But I think he is comparing apples and oranges when he uses the 25-35 lb range. A lot of people on here would realize its not going to be a joy to use a very light pack to carry that much weight, but I think people who consider themselves LW, let alone UL, would only be carrying that kind of weigh for short periods of time.

So methinks he doth protest too much.

[Derek M.]

I think the real issue here is that there are so many variables involved in a given person finding a pack comfortable that it will be impossible for all of us to even come close to agreeing on any universals.

Personally, I would rather "float" a 15 lb load with a 3 lb pack than attempt to carry a 13 lb load with a 1 lb frameless pack, but that's just me. In my opinion, that extra 2 lbs is doing more for my backpacking enjoyment than probably any other 2 lbs in my load, so it's worth it.

Obviously many of you have a much higher weight cutoff than I do where you start to want the support of a real frame. My cutoff is around 13-15 lbs, but it sounds like many other people's cutoff is more like 25 or even 30 lbs.

Different folks, different strokes. Packs are like shoes where fit and comfort is clearly very personal. No big deal that we all don't agree on what works best.

I will second the comments made above that the McHale website is antiquated to the point of being hard to use. Dan McHale's aforementioned commentary is also hard to get through, in large part because it's several thousand words of writing that could frankly be condensed to a few small paragraphs without losing much of the message. I think his point still stands though, even if it was clunkily delivered.

[USA Duane Hall]

I find that if I have not done a good job of packing my pack evenly, it has a big impact on shoulder comfort, even though I try to transfer weight to my hips. Currently, I have a 33 oz. (Zimmerbuilt) winter volume pack that carries for a weekend o/n trip, what I used to carry just a few years ago for a week long summer bp trip. For my summer trips, the ZPacks Arc Blast does fine, but, once again, all depends on weight distribution. So much better than the Golite Gust I had a few years ago before getting a SMD Starlight pack. I'm currently wanting to get a small frameless pack under 10 oz. for summer, weekend trips.
In the late 70's and into the 80's when I just weighted 135 lbs. I killed myself with 50 lb. loads for week long trips and a Camptrails pack, designed for weekend trips after I researched pack volumes before I got my Golite Gust.
Duane

[Nick Gatel]

For the past 3+ years I have used three packs almost exclusively:

– zPacks Zero
– McHale Bump
– McHale LBP

The pack choice for each trip depends mostly on duration, total weight of everything, and volume needed.

Except for winter snow trips, my base weight is almost always less than 10 lbs, even when using the LBP. So I guess they are all UL packs, right?

But base weight means diddly – my water, fuel, and food almost always weigh more than the rest of my stuff.

In deserts my total weight doesn't decrease each day, I often need to replenish my water with enough to last a day or two. The LBP has carried up to 14 days of food, which for me, is better than putting together a route that makes me walk to a re-supply point and civilization in the middle of a trip.

I have owned some other brands of UL frameless packs and some UL internal frame packs, none of which were satisfactory overall.

My McHales will last longer than I have years left remaining to hike. I doubt I will every need to buy another pack. The Zero will probably die sometime this year — they don't last forever. It doesn't matter that the zero is ending its lifespan, nowadays I usually strip down the Bump for trips I used to use frameless packs on, and it weighs under 2 lbs without the frame and belt, although it is rare for me to do this; the pack normally weighs under 3 lbs on most trips, unless I take the top lid, both hip belt pockets, and the shoulder strap pocket — I rarely configure it with all the accessories.

I am done buying packs, and that is a good feeling. The money can sit in the bank for a rainy day.

We have to remember that most of the UL frameless and framed packs are not very durable. Durability is important to me. I don't want to plan trips and circumvent a great cross country route, canyon, or boulder field because my pack is too fragile.

If you are happy with your current frameless pack, keep using it. You don't need the approval of the community. If you are happy with your framed pack, keep using it, you don't need positive reinforcement from anyone here. If you are buying a new pack (or multiple packs) every year or two, you may want to check your premises regarding packs.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

"Personally, I would rather "float" a 15 lb load with a 3 lb pack than attempt to carry a 13 lb load with a 1 lb frameless pack….that extra 2 lbs is doing more for my backpacking enjoyment than probably any other 2 lbs in my load, so it's worth it."

How best to spent 2 lbs in the context of carrying a 13 lbs load?

Option A:
32oz: Upgrade frameless pack to 3 lbs dream pack.

Option B:
9oz: Swap frameless pack for very comfortable ULA Ohm 2.0 (25oz)
4oz: Add a delicious block of Dubliner cheese
4oz: Add Small flask of Lagavullin Scotch
4oz: Add Tenkara Hane fishing rod & kit
3oz: Upgrade sleeping pad to a long & wide model
And still be 1/2 pound lighter

[Marko Botsaris]

@Nick

I'm only saying that strictly in terms of economic and safety criteria the argument is bogus if you are balancing one of Dan's packs against "similar" UL packs. I too would love to have just have few packs and never buy any for the rest of my life, but its not an economic issue, unless you mean economy of numbers of packs. More like a "quality aesthetic" one. I bought two packs last year, but before that I used one pack for everything for more than a decade, and it was a patched up ULA (I'm firmly in the framed camp), not one that costs twice as much. But if I really knew exactly what I wanted/needed I would probably want Dan M. to make it for me, and be done.

Also, I get the part about being UL, but still needing to carry lots of water in the desert.

I just feel that way Dan M. sometimes expresses it is a bit hyperbolic. Or maybe it would all be clear if his presentation style was more clear and less all over the place. At any rate I take anything he says on the subject *very* seriously.

I just think that, contrary to his assertions, (a) UL pack makers are NOT usually either claiming, or trying to be the equivalent of what Dan is calling the necessary minimum pack, so they are not "lying", (b) I don't think they do their designs out of pure ignorance, and (c) most UL enthusiasts are not at all confused about the tradeoffs involved. I say this even through my personal sweet-spot has evolved to something pretty identical to what Dan M. and you have described.

[Nick Gatel]

I don't feel other packs are similar to Dan's in how they carry. But I have lots of miles on mine so I can say that, especially after using a couple of the very popular UL internal frame packs.

[David Ure]

Dan, great post!

[Author]

Posts