Paradox Packs Evolution pack system review

[David Ure]

Sam, Dave mentions it in post #2:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/

[Sam Haraldson]

Thanks for the heads up on the 24 article everyone. I wasn't sure if that review was the aforementioned or not. That one's sitting in another tab in my browser until I have some time to give it the time it deserves to for me to read and digest it.

[Josh Kuntz]

Thanks for a great review. As a backpacker and a hunter, I have been very curious about this pack and you have given the most comprehensive review I have seen thus far. Well done.

If you are looking for ideas for another pack review, I would love to see a similar style review for the Stone Glacier packs. Either the SOLO or SKY 5100 models.

Cheers!

[David Chenault]

Thanks Josh. The new Stone Glacier packs do look interesting. Lots of exciting developments in this area.

Sam the 24 Campfire is the article I had in mind. For some reason they don't facilitate permalinks.

Peter, I used a convenient split-trunked birch in the front yard for stay bending. Peculiar to the neighbors, but effective.

[Ed Tyanich]

Nice article Dave. Your experience with the Paradox is very similar to mine. Mine was also a pre-production pack and I'm glad Nathan and Kevin listened to input on shoulder harness, adding Pals webbing to the hip belt etc.

I did have the chance to pack out an elk in mine and outside of the shoulder harness which has since been changed, it handled a maximum load of 96 lbs quite well.

[Christopher *]

Thank you for the well articulated and thoughtful write-up.

I was interested in the frame design when these packs were first announced.

I am however still not certain I fully understand the claim; "As the load in the pack goes up, the tension in the whole system becomes greater, and the frame stiffens."

Can anyone explain with a bit more clarity how that press-fit articulating joint becomes stiffened with the addition of increased weight?

Thanks!

[David Chenault]

"Can anyone explain with a bit more clarity how that press-fit articulating joint becomes stiffened with the addition of increased weight?"

As you can see in the photos of the bare frame, at rest the frame is a U with the vertical sides parallel. The fabric encasement forces the vertical parts to bend towards each other. The greater the load placed onto said encasement, the greater the outward force back towards parallel orientation, which in turn makes articulation un-possible.

[Ian Clark]

Great review as always. I fully understand the concept of a light weight load hauler and I see no need for an UL argument here. Of course not everyone has had to haul tools/materials for trail maintenance, replace batteries for remote repeaters, SAR gear, communication gear, multiple optics and game cameras, or food for a team in the field. So I accept their confusion and innocence.

[Christopher *]

Thank you for the reply David, and again thank you for the write-up and the plethora of pictures.

Unfortunately I am still having trouble visualizing the mechanics involved with the frame.

I can see that the fabric "encasement" is designed to force the vertical members together. In my mind the frame would exhibit "maximum" articulation in the bare state … that is the frame would demonstrate the fullest articulation possible when unloaded and out of the "encasement" with the vertical members in parallel position and the press-fit bottom joint unstressed. With the "encasement" forcing the vertical members together, I would intuitively think the inward system tension would place stress on the press-fit joint and inhibit articulation, before the addition of any weight or any other outside forces … obviously this is the opposite of how it apparently works, I'm just not certain I understand why.

I also am having difficulty visualizing how addition of weight (forces pulling down and out) would effect a force that would pull the vertical members back toward parallel. If anything I would think the opposite would be true.

Additionally on a more global scale, if forcing the vertical members back toward parallel orientation has any definitive effect on frame articulation, how great of an effect do the multitudinous cross-pack (from vertical member to vertical member) compression straps effect frame performance? Can you unintentionally effect frame flex by cranking down on those straps?

Sorry if this line of inquiry is sophomoric. I found the frame design and claims to be really intriguing, but I cannot seem to visualize how it is actually working.

[Dale Wambaugh]

DaveC wrote, "I specifically addressed the meaning of "ultralight" in the article. Those who persist in seeing this as a numbers only issue will continue to not have my sympathy."

You can write all the disclaimers and excuses you like, it's a heavy pack for heavy loads and antithetical to the whole UL concept. Indeed numbers DO come into it and I certainly don't seek your sympathy! It is an editorial trend I don't truly grasp.

I don't intend to be mean spirited, but it does smack of "this isn't pertinent, but we're going to review it anyway."

[Alister R Barnes]

An extremely well written review, David. If read carefully, it is easy to decide whether this pack is for you, and whether it is worth buying,
As you say, UL is a state of mind, and not simply about pounds and ounces. To me it meets what should be the BPL criteria.
Delete this review, and BPL would be less interesting, and therefore less attractive.

[spelt with a t]

>>You can write all the disclaimers and excuses you like, it's a heavy pack for heavy loads

For the loads it carries it's a very light pack, actually. The comparable capacity Mystery Ranch weighs twice as much. I have a very comfortable older internal frame that weighs about 3 lbs, and while I've had 60 lbs in it (unwillingly), I wouldn't care to do so again.

>>and antithetical to the whole UL concept.

We enjoy and applaud adventurers who do wild, epic trips (Skurka, Gates, Erin and Hig)–certainly we aren't deluding ourselves they're skipping down the trail with 20 lbs? What is the difference between applying UL principles so you can carry 50 lbs of expedition food and a packraft vs doing the same so you can carry an elk quarter? No one gets bonus points for packing out meat in a Golite Jam. It's not appropriate for the job, and would rightfully be called stupid.

>>Indeed numbers DO come into it and I certainly don't seek your sympathy! It is an editorial trend I don't truly grasp.

I think of it as exploring the function of tools that can be used to do things in the woods other than just walk. Anytime I take my packraft it adds ten pounds automatically. Is any trip with a packraft then not UL, even though compared with a folding kayak, a packraft itself is definitely UL? What if my base weight sans rafting gear is 2 lbs? 10 lbs?

I'm not the best to proffer an opinion, probably, but I like the expanded focus. When I first started reading at BPL the PCT/Sierras bias was easy to see even if I didn't know what to call it. Indeed, I've started such threads as "What's so great about the JMT?" and "Why are rocks more interesting than trees?" (second one somewhat paraphrased, about the bias towards hiking/taking pictures above treeline).

I think the point I'm trying to make is that if you want to do different things in different environments, you have to carry different stuff. Sometimes you have to carry a lot of weight, even if your planning and gear selection are ruthlessly efficient. I think that process–learning it, applying it, designing gear around it–is a more useful application of UL overall than keeping the focus only on items of gear below a certain weight.

[Sam Haraldson]

I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted an ultralight frameless pack to carry my chainsaw, pulaski, water, and emergency gear when I worked on trail crew so I opted for a Northface internal system of moderate weight. The platform systems that existed back then were pretty heavy and looked more like medieval torture devices than the beauty of a rig featured in this article.

For the weenies out there more weight could possibly be saved by sewing the packbag directly to the frame panel but that would come at a serious loss to the versatility of being able to have multiple sizes of packbags. Also, leaving the panel pocket at home saves a 1/4 pound. All in all the low weight of this item as a ratio to it's load bearing capacity is hard to beat.

[David Ure]

I agree that should one need to carry a load, this would be an option albeit this pack was designed specifically for hunters who requir carrying heavy quantities of meat. Of course the pack could be used for other things.

For what it seemingly does, the weight empty does not seem to be abnormal when compared to comparable products.

"For the weenies out there…" This made me laugh. Mostly because it wasn't that long ago that I got picked on by both Sam Haraldson and Mike Clelland for suggesting that a 3lb framed pack could be considered as an addition to a posted gear list that had a frameless book bag as the 'load' carrier given the weights that would be carried. This is backpacking LIGHT, they said. I took it in stride.

I would still prefer a Mchale. ;)

[Sam Haraldson]

I bet Mike still sticks to his guns on that one, Dave.

[David Ure]

"I bet Mike still sticks to his guns on that one, Dave."

Indeed. ;)

[Ryan Smith]

Dave C-

Although this pack is much more than I need for any trips I take, I appreciate the well thought out review. Well done.

I understand some of the angst regarding these reviews. I try to keep it in perspective that there isn't a publication out there that grabs my attention with every single article, so I can't expect BPL to do so everytime either. They still hit the mark more than most. Without BPL, I would've never even known pack rafting existed! Now, I look forward to the day I can try it out.

Ryan

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Dave, thanks for reviewing this truly innovative pack design. Great photos and comparison chart.

I could have used the Evolution in its larger hunting format when hunting mule deer in northern Nevada's Ruby Mountains this October. Instead I used my old Dana Designs Terraplane with my scoped Browning .300 Win. mag. strapped to the back of that pack. I was carrying over 50 lbs. but the d@mn pack itself weighed 7.5 lbs!

With 10 F to 15 F. nights and early mornings I had to carry a liner for my TT Moment, a mummy-shaped down "topper" for my overfilled WM 3 season bag and warm clothing like a Thermolite Micro insulating layer jacket, GTX hunting parka, GTX winter gloves W/removable liners, GTX knee high gaiters, etc..

Then there was the dressing-out/dragging-out gear like a larger folding lockblade knife, elbow length nitrile gloves, gallon ZipLoc bags for heart and liver, rollup plastic "Deersleigher" sled, and Gerber folding bone saw.

So UL backpackers who have not backpack hunted please understand the minimum logistics required of a backpacking hunter.

Good Lord, if I could have saved 3 lbs. on my pack weight with the Evolution I'd have done it. Now there is a pack that will easily make me sell my Terraplane. (I understand Terraplanes are now collectors items. Good!)

[Nico .]

Nice review Dave. It looks like a well thought out pack with some interesting features/design concepts. I appreciate you taking the time to walk us through and explain the various components and options.

Like many others, I personally don't have too many needs for a pack of this size or carrying capacity, but I can appreciate that for what it's been designed to do, it's an ultralight solution.

I could certainly see it come into play on an extended unsupported expedition, a long desert hike, packrafting trips, hunting trips or even a hike-a-bike trip where one needs to strap and carry their bike for a portion of the trip. If this pack helps to achieve one of these trips in an UL fashion (and save a few lbs on what's surely to be a heavier load), then it seems relevant and BPL appropriate to me.

A pack like this makes me want to dream up ambitious trips that could make use of its abilities.

[Nick Gatel]

Dan has stated many times that he really doesn't want his packs reviewed. He doesn't need reviews to sell packs.

[Nick Gatel]

"I specifically addressed the meaning of "ultralight" in the article. Those who persist in seeing this as a numbers only issue will continue to not have my sympathy."

Yes, Yes, Yes!!!!

[Ian]

A pack that can carry up to 100lbs (per their website) that weighs 3lb 10oz is interesting to me. This is a great option for those who would like to go on an extended journey but do not have the luxury of a resupply. I understand that this may be a foreign concept to those who never or rarely leave a groomed trail.

I also suspect that if a review of the 48oz ULA Catalyst with a 40lb capacity was done instead, the reactions here would be much different. For a 10oz penalty between the two, I can carry a pint less of water and still come out 6oz ahead.

Not trying to be a BPL groupie but another great article David.

[Vanne Mocilac]

As an older female who archery and rifle hunts in Montana, I really enjoyed this article! This year I boned out a bull elk and put it in Alaska bags to air cool. Four men with various frame packs helped get it out in one trip. I used a Mystery Ranch Trance XXX with the meat inside a trash compactor bag inside my pack, and a Kifaru Gun Bearer for my rifle. Twice I fell and had to be picked up off the ground, like the Gary Larsen cartoon! I need a pack to carry warm clothes for glassing, but ever hopeful, for carrying out meat! Maybe we are a small niche market, however, I love articles like this! Getting off the beaten path to hunt and not having to come back to camp in the dark and then turn around and leave the next morning in the dark is why I joined BPL and sold the wall tent and cylinder stove. Titanium and cuben fiber are my knees' best friends, well, next to my elk packing friends…

[Michael K]

David C……thanks for the review. Can you tell us what frame length you used this pack at? Did you keep it at 28" with the frame extensions in or did you sometimes use it at 24"? I am contemplating just getting the 28 solid frame and perhaps trimming it to 26 for a balance between more actual load lifter effect and not needing a 28" frame, since I can't see myself ever carrying much more than 60 pounds. Also, I'm wondering if the 28" frame height made it feel like your head was being forced to lurch over or if at 24" there was not much actual load lifter action? If the 24" configuration had some load lifter effect and the 28" was not too constricting than I will go with the 24/28 standard frame extension configuration instead of trimming a solid 28" frame by 2".

[David Chenault]

Michael, I used the frame with extensions (28") almost all the time. At a 21" torso length, I get some load lifter action at 24, but not much. For me, 26" would probably be fine most of the time, but the extra 2 inches is very welcome at 50 pounds and above.

[Author]

Posts