Jul 17, 2007 at 8:17 pm #1224165
Benjamin SmithBPL Member
@bugbombLocale: South Texas
Companion forum thread to:Jul 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm #1395712
@kdesignLocale: Mythical State of Jefferson
Hmmm, a large (nearly 70L) pack rated to only comfortably carry 20lbs.
As Queen Victoria used to say, "We are not amused".
A nice premise that might be better in a smaller, lighter package more in fitting with the UL ethos.Jul 17, 2007 at 11:40 pm #1395725
Miguel ArboledaBPL Member
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Some work on fitting and ergonomics might be "fitting", too! When was the last time I wore a pack that hung down over my bum like that?Jul 18, 2007 at 6:54 am #1395749
Mark LarsonBPL Member
@mlarsonLocale: Southeast USA
Someone help me out, please. I only see 2 side pockets? Where are the other 5? I read the article and stared at the photos for a while, but I still don't get it.
Interesting design, though. Hopefully it will go through some more iterations and get the kinks out.
-MarkJul 18, 2007 at 10:15 am #1395772
Ben 2 WorldBPL Member
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
That's the first thing I noticed! Tanya seems to be wearing her pack too low. Also, the pack droops down a lot below the hip belt! Butt kick?
I'm wondering if lining the pack with a sleeping bag instead of sleeping pad like most other frameless packs is the reason for the overall droopiness?
And yeah, a definite mis-match between pack capacity and pack carrying ability.Jul 30, 2007 at 2:31 am #1396797
Honestly I've never worn this pack, nor even seen it anywhere, but it looks like it wears like a saggy, sloppy mess. First re-design point, move the pack body up above the waist belt; as Miguel also noted. Looks like they tried to use external compression straps a-la granite gear, or something.. Please, will the designer of this pack join the conversation so we can assist?May 10, 2008 at 7:56 pm #1432627
Okay it looks odd, but it works.
The pockets are layered in the two "side" pockets, which actualy is one large pocket that hangs on the bottom of the pack kinda like a tube (hence the "droopyness"). there is also one pocket onthe top cap, which can be reached while wearing it.
Though to be fair this lady is wearing and using the pack completely wrong.
This video shoud help with the pockets:
also here is a diagram:
The extra volume is there due to the fact that: you just stuff it full then compress everything at once; rather than stuffing a bunch of sacs first.
Also this video will show you how to compress it properly:
It's not a perfect pack, as stated the Ultra-ultralight fabric on the back of the pack is sort of questionable. I don't really see the point of it, how many onces did it really save, 1 maybe?
While we are on the subject of fabrics, why is it not Dyneema ripstop? Also it's only available in one color, and it is not a great color. And all this for $180 bucks?
yes, I agree it's overpriced; I agree it's a bit on the heavier side of ultralight ( lets get real though it still is rediclously light compared to most other packs.) Yet I like the compression pack idea (easier packing less stuff sacks that add wieght), and the pockets DO work just as advertized.Nov 16, 2009 at 11:33 am #1545659
i havent used this equipment but it looks compelling to try.
i guess the compression style pack has shown itself to be the best method to carry equipment and food in the lightest way. light straps squeezing things opposed to rigid materials (heavier?) having things pressed onto them and outward.
i saw in a video one reason stated for the pad carried on the back of the pack – it was for easy access during rest periods as a seat cushion.
i dont know if straps holding the sleep pad where the hikers back meets the pack would be uncomfortable or not.
with clothing on i wouldnt think it would be a problem.
it seems to me the pack then is conforming to an ultralight ethos as it strives to keep loads at 20 lbs. compression i guess is the best way to flexibly accomodate varying lightweight loads.
i will keep looknig for further reviews of these products.Nov 16, 2009 at 9:07 pm #1545796
in looking at the video and the product website i didnt see how a sleeping bag would stay dry in rain (with water flows on the ground).
the manufacturer mention a 3/4 length pad for the sleeping bag but i would think that would leave the foot portion to get wet?
would this be a solution?
Adventure Medical Kits Thermo-Lite 2 Bivvy
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.