What Dan McHale has to say about UL backpacks

@Nick, No, I get it. I just think Dan M.'s critique is a bit like complaining that sheet of paper was used to write the script for a sitcom, and not used instead for a shakespere play. Unless you believe that the guy writing the sitcom honestly had intended to write a shakespere play, there is no cause to criticize the sitcom for not being King Lear.

As someone who often has to carry a lot of water (4-4.5L), I often carry mid 20's pound packs when first starting starting out for trips of 6 days or less. But as others have mentioned, you aren't carrying that weight all the time as the food weight is being eaten and the water weight is varying all over the place during the course of the day since you are constantly drinking it and later refilling it. So the average weight over the course of a day is less.

I've found that if a pack doesn't fell comfortable, try repacking it differently before giving up on it. When I first tried a frameless pack, yes my shoulders would hurt by sometime in the afternoon. However, after exerimenting with how I pack it, I haven't had any problems in recent years. So I reject the idea that a frameless pack has to be uncomfortable or can't carry the weight. A good framed pack has it place which is why I still have one, but I rarely find a need for it.

I think Mr. McHale has a some decent points, which are unfortunately rather hard to find due to formatting.

Many "UL" frameless packs which have curried favor in the last decade have had some flawed design elements. Many framed UL packs still do. In many cases they're getting sorted out, and packs are getting better every year. The page cited has been up for quite some time, so perhaps it is no longer especially relevant. If Mr. McHale gave up on a few of his more cherished ways of doing things, he could probably make a nice 2 pound, 45 liter rucksack with decent features and good load transfer up to 45 pounds.

Unfortunately, his packs would likely still be quite ugly.

Max, more pullups and less time changing your avatar will sort out that Boreas problem for ya.

@Dan Durston,
I like your style!

I've been searching for a pack that's really comfortable for me and lighter than my ~3 pound stripped down Osprey Volt 60, but alas, I have yet to find it.

I've tried on all the ULA packs and can't seem to make them work for me. I'd like to try the Gossamer Gear Mariposa, but I have my doubts that it would transfer the load to my hips nearly as well as my current pack, and there is no way for me to try it out before buying it.

At this point, I sort of doubt it's worth the time and expense it would cost me to find another pack that I think is really comfortable carrying up to 35 pounds. At a certain point, I figure you just have to call it a day and go hiking with the gear you already have. That's where I am at at this point. Not saying I'm not open to a change, just that I really like the fit, carry, and features of my current pack and replacing it will be a real uphill battle.

With that said, I think I'll go with

Option C:
32oz: Upgrade frameless pack to 3 lb dream pack.
4oz: Add a delicious block of Dubliner cheese
8oz: Add fresh fruit of choice
2oz: Add snickers bar
3oz: Add delicious pastry of choice…

Ok, clearly I've got a problem :)

A lot of this is going to depend on the individual. Personally, I much prefer carrying any weight over 15 lbs on my hips than my shoulders. My back isn't the greatest, and my shoulders tend to get knotted and sore, so having solid weight transfer makes a big difference in my comfort level. From the comments here, it seems that's not the case for everyone.

However, it's fairly easy to determine what camp you're in. Take your 3 lb internal frame pack, pack it as carefully and lightly as you would any frameless, and go for a hike. Try it both with and without the hip belt fastened. If you find yourself more often undoing the belt and carrying the weight on your shoulders, you'll probably be fine with a lighter pack. If you're like me, you'll only undo the belt for short spells to let your hips breathe. If a 22 lb load carries more comfortably on your hips than your shoulders, the same would be true for the 20 lb load that results from your pack reduction.

Mitchell, I'm afraid I can't agree. Although I can tolerate some weight on my shoulders (and I do think people vary very much on this point), I much prefer to have it on my hips. However, I don't need a 3 lb internal frame pack to get a 20 lb weight onto my hips; I can do that with a much lighter pack. 30 lbs might be different, but then my legs would be complaining so much my shoulders wouldn't get a look in.

You can transfer the weight in a frameless pack to your hips by:

-using a sleeping pad either rolled or folded.

-choosing the correct torso length of the pack. Many seem to wear packs that are too short. Get one where the shoulder straps attach to the main body of the pack as the same level as the top of your shoulders or even a bit taller. This minimizes torso collapse and puts more of the weigh on your hips.

-pack the load tightly with heavier items about mid back heigh and against the back.

-Pack light, which is consistent with backpackinglight.com

I suspect that some haven't tried this and have written off frameless packs because they are packing them like traditional framed packs.

Also, a framed pack doesn't Have to weigh a lot …

Adding a 3.5 ounce frame to a well fit pack (with a hipbelt) can make for a very comfortable carry at well under 2 pounds.

This is a significantly modified Ohm. I got the 12" wide frame from Six Moon Design. Gossamer Gear has frames that are 6.25" wide.

(The load lifter straps are tucked away for an uncluttered view.)

I can't carry 5 lbs on my shoulders comfortably for an hour. In that time frame the muscles that connect your shoulders to your neck are killing me. I carry 90%+ of the weight on my hips.

For those of you who don't get this, here's the URL to a blog about a husband/wife team that hiked the CDT each carrying Gossamer Gear G4s. A bit of shameless promotion for GG, but a quick easy read. ( http://gossamergear.com/wp/customer-feedback/g4s-cdt )

Stated max weight was almost 30 lb when carrying lots of water and food, but typical was more like 20 I believe. The main thing I wanted to call attention to is towards the end where they're talking about that max weight.

"We really tested the weight limits on the packs, at one point carrying 7 liters and 5 days of food in New Mexico, and while the packs were more uncomfortable (is that much weight ever comfortable?) we got away with it without compromising the integrity of the packs." – copied from article

I suspect DAN would point to this (as do I) with an "Ah ha!" sort of gesture because they tipped their hand, per se… CAN 30 lbs ever be comfortable? OF COURSE IT CAN… but only w/ a good pack. When you entertain the question of framed vs frameless packs coming from the mindset that anything over 25-30 lb CAN'T be comfortable, why bother w/ a slightly heavier framed pack?

Clearly the G4 did last the entire way and I doubt these two are suffering scoliosis or impacted spinal column or whatever else carrying too much weight on your shoulders could give you, so props to them. Just kinda funny to hear that assertion.

"CAN 30 lbs ever be comfortable? OF COURSE IT CAN… but only w/ a good pack."
For me, this statement would need refining to "can 30 lbs ever be comfortable on the back". Personally, over about 20-25 lbs gets uncomfortable on the legs (especially on steep uphills, which most of our hiking includes). I doubt that any pack can help with that.
Moreover, there are some packs of 2 ibs or less that can carry 30 lbs comfortably … on the back.

I personally like a lightweight frame as soon as I am over 10lbs so outside of sul overnights I like the frame. however I believe there is almost never a reason to carry a 3lb backpack. (Desert Hiking and Canyoneering being the big exceptions). There are just too many good sub 3 pound packs with frames. I hace a Circuit which cut down in just over 2 lbs and for me 30lbs in that thing is easy. If you want to go further you can get a 1lb framed backpack from zpacks (I lust after it).

Hyoh and everything but the false dichotomy that is created between Heavy and Frameless doesnt add to the discussion.

As always the lightweight philosophy is to find the lightest weight pieces of equipment that meets your goals.

It's true: my framed pack is more like 4 lb.

It's fun reading these threads because, as much as I have learned and lightened my rig by getting great ideas and reviews from backpackers on this site, my 7-day High Sierra load is still gonna be 34-36lb with 3 liters of water, bear canister, food, first aid kit, filter, stove, fuel camera and fishing gear. I remain STOKED at this weight, and it includes a fat, comfortable BA air pad in non-midget length, a marvelous CSUL2 and a folding stool that I enjoy meals, fishing and such on.

Coming from the "Tioga years" referenced a few pages back, and having only internal-frame experience with a Lowe pack I used for winter/mountaineering briefly, I am always intrigued by the tantalizing descriptions of packs like Dan McHale's and by the other, neat-looking modern external frame packs.

The thing is, I'm still *in* the Tioga years and my pack is *very comfortable*. Kelty upgraded my 1980 shoulder straps for free and the new straps are (high pitched voice here) "amazing". The load capacity is spot-on, the frame allows me to distribute weight wherever I want between hips and shoulders, gives me an erect hiking position and it's lighter than my Lowe pack was, that's for sure!

I'd love to try and be further amazed by a pack like Dan McHale's that's purportedly even more comfortable, with the same load capacity and less weight, but how could I ever justify the money to "try" when I have a pack that's comfortable, does the job very reliably and makes me happy? Heck, I even have an extendable load bar to attach a weather balloon to, taking my trail weight down to 3lb (breezes are interesting).

I am new to backpacking and just all my money on a good sleeping bag and pad. My next purchase is a backpack, when I have the cash. However, since I don't, I am now renting one from my youngest's Boy Scout troop. It's an external frame Kelty. There are no load lifters, no chest trap, nothing but shoulder straps and hip belt. My total weight was about 20# because I didn't carry a tent and stove. I had absolutely no problem with the pack. Even though I was ragged on because of my pack, I don't mind carrying it. Until I can afford something more modern, at $3 a trip, I will renting.

By the way, I'm 5'3" and around 125#.

When I first started getting into backpacking in the late 90s I used my dad's old Kelty (I'm pretty sure it is anyway) external frame. Other than the fact that whatever was used as a coating on the inside of the fabric (PU?) had turned to what looked like dandruff, the pack was fairly comfortable with a sub 20 lbs load. I always thought it was cool to still be using that pack and to reuse what my dad used when he was younger (I used to bring his big Buck knife with me too) is kind of neat. So Petra, I say rock that Kelty external with pride!

Considering the cost and weight of the packs McHale makes, am I the only member that finds "what Dan McHale has to say about UL packs" to be self serving to the point of being funny? Did we expect Dan McHale to say, "Man, I have made a huge mistake all these years making heavy, really expensive packs you can pass down to your grand kids !"? No, what he said is a defense of his business model. I would not expect him to say anything else.

I think most everyone should carry a McHale… It would make all their other good packs go for a lot cheaper on gear swap.

+1 for Mark's comments. I would love to buy one of those terribly uncomfortable frameless Zpacks Blast's from a member looking to bulk up to a more comfortable, durable pack.

I think we should respect Dan McHales views. A person cannot build a successful business over a long period without having quite strong views on their design philosophy. He serves a market and that market finds his product to be top end. When they critique a movement in their industry, that critiique is most likely based on their own philosophy and should not be construed as them rowing their own boat.

Similarly I am sure that the Rons, Joe and the rest have quite strong views on design and gear. If they didn't they wouldn't have started their businesses and we wouldn't be benefiting from their labours.

My MLD Burn is, what, 12oz? and I find it hard not to believe that it will be soldiering on 20 years from now…

Too bad you didn't get it at REI….

warning, long rant:

Richard Fowler has a point. There is a time and place for McHale's style of backpack. In my lurking I've come across some of his posts in the past and things tend to get interesting when he shows up here. Comparing his website now to before he seems to have cleaned up a lot of the overtly anti-UL vitriol (or just condensed it into one particular area on his site). To his defense, many people (especially people here at BPL) reciprocate the animosity. It's almost as if we were programmed to be at odds. I know there are quite a few happy McHale customers on BPL, and admittedly the heated debate that ensues with Dan McHale's occasional appearance is quite entertaining. I have respect for him coming here into the lion's den.

Putting my diplomacy aside for a moment though, McHale still has way too many words on his site. While his propaganda probably does convince (maybe scares) people into buying his backpacks some of the time, I think BPLers will understand when I say it likewise ostracizes a large group of potential customers. If he just kept those strong opinions to himself I think he would sell more backpacks in the long run. I see a use for his backpacks, I think the ones I've seen are quite nice, but when you argue that I'm an idiot until I abandon my interest in UL gear for a McHale pack…
For me, and I've admittedly never met Dan McHale in person, his writing on his site makes me not want to meet him and try one of his seemingly excellent backpacks. Kudos to him for making the effort to clean his site up a bit and to sort of quarantine his more subjective views, but the fact is the attacks are still there and are as inflammatory and antagonistic as ever. His wording leads me to make assumptions about his personality, whether that's fair or not, I subscribe to the belief that what we write does reflect on our personalities. The tone of McHale's site is patriarchal, egotistical, and condescending. Those are not qualities I respect in a human being, but that's just my personal opinion. I think others here at BPL likely feel similarly and so the heated debate, flame wars, and personal attacks are not all that surprising when McHale shows up.

Some quotes/reflections after reading through McHales site today (I've seen it's "evolution" to some degree):

"Versatility has always been the middle name of McHale Versatile Packs!" (Letter from Dan McHale) – a 3.5 lbs. backpack that is in "UL mode" does not appeal to someone trying to go UL, I'm sorry but that's not an example of versatility from our perspective here at BPL.

"Being miserable every day of a backpacking trip to save .73% is not what it should be all about" (Letter from Dan McHale) – We who go UL, everyone at BPL, are miserable…

"It does not surprise me because I saw the same thing in the 70s! People have not evolved since that time to be suddenly more capable of tolerating frameless packs! People are just as smart now as they were back then – that's comforting to see." (Letter from Dan McHale) – Most people are idiots, they were in the 70s and they are now, but not McHale and for him that's "comforting to see"… An enlightened person basking in the stupidity of the masses. Welcome to the USA, where many continue to live under an imperialistic psyche in our relationship with the rest of the world (that's how I see it at least). We (and apparently McHale) are exceptional.

From Dan's blog:

"I have been involved in critiquing frameless packs since the 1970s."

"Some people think there are lighter weight packs on the market which are perfectly comfortable for lighter loads"

"Most of my business in all pack categories is from people that have tried other packs first."

"The performance of todays frameless light packs is no better than the frameless packs from the 70s"

"To focus on weight alone is 'dumb engineering' and leads to poor results to say the least."

"It's the light pack that wears you down, not the more effective 'HEAVY' one."

"We are not a country full of mechanical engineers, (even though it sometimes appears that way) so many people don't understand until they suffer needlessly and need help."

"The internet is such a shill-zone that it is difficult to see that the current fad of frameless packs is failing as well."

"but I do not want to make gear that does not perform well, and I will not be caught telling people something is comfortable or should be, when that is a physical impossibility"

Here's what I gather from these posts and some conversations I've had in the past with certain McHale pack owners:

-McHale and his customers do *real* outdoors pursuits (read: mountaineering, climbing) while the UL community is solely dedicated to less-challenging, less-risky, less-physically demanding adventures (try telling that to Skurka). People who buy and use UL gear were clueless newbs before, are now, and will continue to be so until they convert to the McHale mantra. If you aren't a newb and do go UL you are a masochist (still an idiot though). I think this logic pervades a lot of the outdoor community, even within those who go UL.

-McHale has tried every single pack there was, is, and will be, and knows what ones work and what ones are defective. They've "been there and done that", and now that they've seen the light they can feel pity for those still striving for their level of enlightenment. "Some day you'll understand son…". Disclaimer: many UL backpackers are guilty of this too as they push their UL mantra.

-UL backpacks aren't defective because McHale says so necessarily, rather they, according to the laws of physics, can't possibly work and make a load comfortable. UL packs are trying to ignore the laws of physics. Read: McHale's notion of physics, where less weight actually equals more weight/discomfort, and more weight equals less weight/comfort. McHale's genius construction defies the laws of physics as the idiotic general public understands them.

-ULA, GG, Zpacks, SMD, Zimmerbuilt, HMG, MLD, etc. are all part of a giant internet conspiracy that tries to trick the idiotic general public into believing that the specific weight of your pack matters, all just to make a buck. They actually have no investment in making hiking gear that works and serves towards somebody's enjoyment in the outdoors. They don't really care about what they do. They just want your money and could care less about whether or not what they sell helps you do what you want to do. All of these companies are gimmicks/a farce. (Wow, if I were one of these manufacturers I would have a big issue with this position. I don't recall seeing any propaganda attacking McHale's pack weights on any of the aforementioned cottage manufacturers. McHale doesn't throw out names, but considering how small the truly UL industry is, does he even need to?

My rant ends here, had to get that off the chest

McHale has his take and turns out a quality product. If you don't like his Kool Aid, you don't have to drink it.

He is a cranky genius. I've though of a meeting between McHale and Ray Jardine– quite a match. Jardine is equally cranky and neither suffer fools gladly.

I suspect that McHale sells as many packs as he can make and is comfortable enough with the results. His website may inadvertently act as a filter to thin the crowd.

I've had a couple used McHales. I can't afford a new one and would only seek out a pack on that level if I were working in the woods professionally and had a need to haul heavy equipment.

As far as durability, UL packs need more care and caution in handling, but most aren't too fragile and certainly up to the loads theory are designed for. There are compromises in all designs.

That would be the match of the century. Where can I get tickets?

I haven't drank his Kool-Aid and I don't know if I will because his tone irks me to such a degree. That was my point essentially. Why take this tone if you are in the business of selling backpacks? Why make enemies? He could easily fix this on his site but for some reason it is secretly either financially viable or the issue is just that important to him. His been fighting the fight since the 1970s after all, I wasn't even born then. Apparently, I'm just an idiot though so what does it matter? Some day son, some day you'll understand…

+1 to William's rant. I had a similar reaction to Ron Moak's explanation of SMD's new, beefier, heavier packs. The central argument goes: more "comfort" (read weight) and more "durability" (read weight) are what is needed. It so happens more "comfort" and "durability" often equals a higher cost and greater margins. I must be one of those "stupid light" people suffering in ignorance with my fragile and painful frameless pack. I am glad such wise purveyors of heavier packs are here to disabuse me of my silly UL/SUL notions! Except, I have found that my lighter, frameless packs are very comfortable and that being lighter means being more comfortable, not less. I can now hike further and in more comfort then ever. What is wrong with me? Perhaps I need to get heavier, bulkier gear to justify the need for a more "comfortable" and "durable" pack? I bet someone will sell it me.