new SMD packs

Just wanted to quickly say that after having put on a Fusion 50 at the GGG (which I loaded up with about 12 pound of gear) I am very much looking forward to this pack being made available. The load weight distribution of this pack was phenomenal.

"Back in my 20's, when I was heavy hauler, my Dana Designs Arcflex Terraplane could make 50 lbs ride comfortably. However, it was still 50 lbs freaking pounds, no matter how well distributed and padded the weight was. I have never been uncomfortable with my frameless packs. With a GG Nighlight in the pad sleeve of my Mariposa, with a properly packed and distributed load, I have never had a problem even well into the mid 20 pound range."

I read the comments above and couldn't help but respond…

I don't know why this false dilemma between heavyweight and ultralight backpacking keeps reappearing, but nevertheless, it does. Comparing the comfort of carrying 50 lbs of gear in a heavy hauling pack vs. 20 pounds of gear in a minimally framed or frameless pack is the wrong comparison. It is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility of viable options in between these two extremes.

How about comparing the comfort of carrying 20 lbs of gear in a frameless pack vs. carrying that same lightweight load in a 2 or 3 pound pack having a semi-rigid aluminum frame? This is a much more realistic comparison. That is to say, it's more fair to compare carrying a total of 21 pounds with a frameless pack versus carrying a total of 23 pounds with a fully-framed pack.

I'm not going to argue for either side here, but let's at least frame the argument in realistic terms instead of creating a straw man argument where ultralight packs with ultralight loads are clearly superior to back breaking loads carried in 6 pound packs.

Sorry for the thread drift.

Edward

You are going to see a lot of good reviews on the new SMD packs.
It's not the weight, it's how they fit and how the full pack weight carries.

I tried all of the packs on and they do a very good job at the above.
Ron of SMD drilled it into us that of the 4 things they wanted applied to the pack, worrying about the weight was the last on the list.

If everyone worried about how light packs are, we would all be walking around with sub 6 ounce syl-nylon packs.
The reasons we don't buy these pack will be the reason the average backpacker will buy the SMD packs.

I can personally say that the fit of the flight 30 is crazy comfortable for a 30 liter pack.

I don't get the bad mouthing of the weight when they are not met for that purpose.

Encouraging reports from folks, and nice to get some more details from the source.

I'm a reluctant gram weenie myself: my shelter is 7 oz, my quilt is a lb, and this year I added a 4 oz cook system and a 7oz torso pad and a 3.5 oz down vest to my quiver (I know its madness!) but 15 oz for that pack does not sound heavy to me at all if it carries well.

When I first started backpacking, I carried a gregory backpack that must have weighed 5lbs, add to that my ultra heavy 35 lbs load that I'd carry in it. That pack carried like a dream, and I never had any back discomfort. I just moved slower, my lower half hurt more, and backpacking was less fun. I've since carried UL packs with much lighter loads that F'd with my shoulders, hips and back. Sure I went more miles with those packs and my legs felt better, but I was still suffering because of a pack that didn't carry well. Hiking is so repetitive, if something doesn't feel right at the start of the day, its gonna be a whole lot worse by the end of the day. I don't mean to over emphasize the point, because most BPLer's would already agree, but pack comfort trumps pack weight, especially with all the amazing choices of sub 2lb packs we have available.

If the purpose of your pack is to allow you to go on a backpacking trip with less than 5lbs base weight, I can see why 5oz packs would be desirable. But if your goals are more terrain and activity related, then you want the right pack for the right job.

From the SMD Flight page, I think this pretty neatly sums up what I've been looking for in a pack.

'Your hips are free to move naturally and your arms are also less constrained. The vest eliminates the bounce of the pack as you move. For runners, the pack becomes very solid. This make it easier to traverse difficult terrain.

The Flight packs are leaner than similar packs. This make it easier to negotiate cross country through brush.'

Well, I far prefer a 1 pound pack for my travels. SMD has hit a winner at 15oz, I think. It depends on other things now. Pad Keepers to maintain interior volume. Hip belts to allow you to carry a 30 pound load. Pockets to keep stuff handy that is needed while hiking (water treatment, a sweater, rain gear, water bottles, etc.)

Can't wait to see these…

A few thoughts on the Flight series, based on a couple entirely inadequate photos. As usual, I could be totally wrong:

-Good on SMD for tackling form factor in a major way and introducing some packs which don't look like frumpy suitcases. Irrespective of function, their past packs have been by far the ugliest of the Jardine progeny, and that is saying quite a lot.
-Vest harness is intriguing, and I'm glad someone ran with it in a real sized pack. Those pockets should be handy.
-Cultivating a barrel shaped packbag is a curious choice. I've always been acutely skeptical of sweat mitigation as a design spec, and it seems to me that the main effect of this choice will be giving away a significant amount of bag space, moving the load away from the users COG, and making the pack harder to pack well (ie by it not being a rectangle inside).
-In my book load lifters and the resultant wrap harness are 4-6 ounces needlessly spent, though with only two sizes it is probably necessary.
-I want to know more about how the belt attaches to the pack. The shortcoming of delrin rods and hoops (when they're stiff enough to bear real weight) is that they can't be shaped to provide lumbar support. It seems, based on the photos, that the hoop anchors within the pack, and the belt attaches with velcro (?). If the belt is attached along the full top-bottom distance, that will limit its ability to articulate to an individuals lumbar curve. If the belt were only anchored at the bottom, the plastic in it would likely not be necessary.

Does anyone know what kind/weight of fabric these packs use?

Regarding the packs, I'm not the intended market so of course my opinion of them isn't glowing yet. 15 oz for a pack with no hip belt is heavy for my tastes, but I'm not a trail runner. Some trip reports may change my opinion.

Ryan

Another way of looking at these packs is a 2-pound pack that carries better than a 3-pound or even 4-pound pack.

If I had that in my pocket, I wouldn't care what the UL crowd thought either.

The one and only thing I didn't like about the Fusion Line is the shoulder pads.
I have a broken clavicle so they bugged me. However that won't be the case for everyone else.

As far as the Flight Series, the 40 was amazingly comfortable.
I love the 2 side connection points to the shoulder pads.
The design worked extremely well at dispersing the weight throughout your entire body.
It was the most comfortable pack I would use all the time that I have ever tried on.

I also loved the design of the Flight 30, however, with the 30 liters, it can be loaded up with enough gear to make the weight on you shoulders a bad experience in my book. If I am moving fast, I want the weight off my shoulders and on my hips.

Since I can easily fit a weekends worth of stuff in 1500 cubic inches of space and carry little enough weight for the weekend trip, I think a 1500 ci pack would be much less bulk and carry well enough to buy a "vest" pack and not worry about the weight on my shoulders???
It is a comfortable pack, and then again, not everyone can do a weekend with a 1500ci pack.
So the Flight 30 seems to also be for the masses, but not for me.

The Flight 40 on the other hand, I will be getting one of these and using it for all but my weekend trips.

http://www.sixmoondesigns.com/smdnews/155-fusion-pack-series.html

Finally, you can see pix. I'm sure there will be nay-sayers here due to this:

"As to the [design] criteria, they were (in order) comfort, function, durability, weight. With our criteria established, we had a firm foundation upon which to rank design decisions."

So they're 36 and 39 oz respectively, and can potentially carry 50lbs.

These look like great packs. However, I find the 50 lb rating optimistic.

Edited for clarity.

They seem to have substantial hip belts and frames. If the 50lb rating is accurate, that would be great, but it does seem optimistic. I did not see what material the external pockets were made of – mesh or solid? Edit: I see, it says 4-way stretch mesh.

SMD Facebook post says they hope to start shipping in April

>> However, I find the 50 lb rating optimistic.

First, the article reads tested weight and not rated weight. Nor will the Fusion Packs be sold or marketed as 50 pound packs. To be honest there is no independent rating system for packs. So most of the time a rating is little more than a crap shoot. It's even worse among UL packs as the variables that go into achieving support are many and comfort is a highly personal conjecture.

In order to actually achieve the 50 pound test load in the Fusion, we had to pack a lot of dense material (ie. lots and lots of beans). However, once loaded and properly fitted, the pack rode normally with no collapse of the body or deflection in the hip belt. There was also a gap under the shoulder strap, so all of the weight was evenly distributed to the hips.

The real purpose for the testing was to insure that the structure would be sufficient to handle whatever real world loads the pack is likely to encounter. We want to insure that if someone buys the pack and loads it with normal food, water and gear that the pack will handle it gracefully.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone wishing to tote around a 50 pound pack should have their head examined.

Ron

Updated my post to reflect your comments.

I'm super interested in your 65L version. It should be great for Scouting. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Ron, solid job. I love the new packs and the radical rethinking on the design. Are there plans to distribute through outdoor stores around the country? I'd love to try one on in person.

How tall is the frame on both backs? If I were to try one I'd be right between a Flight 40 and Fusion 55 in terms of size. A deciding factor might be how tall it was.

Luke – the torso is adjustable on the packs.

"As far as I'm concerned, anyone wishing to tote around a 50 pound pack should have their head examined."

Indeed Ron, but rather than have some question the validity of the claim, the '50 pound' comment should be removed. It is difficult to get my head around 'lightweight pack' and '50 pound load.'

del

As far as I'm concerned, anyone wishing to tote around a 50 pound pack should have their head examined.

Ron

Before I comment, I'm off to get my head examined. Spring training is just around the corner and I need to be mentally prepared.
Ross

>> Dual loops implies the use of technical axes, does it not?

Not necessary. Large numbers of long distance hikers use trekking poles. It's convenient when in town or hitchhiking to collapse your poles and attach them to the back of your pack. It helps prevent leaving your poles in the back of someones car in the excitement of getting to town. (It happens lots of time.)

Having two loops allows each pole to have their own attachment point. This makes it much easier to add or remove the pole from the pack.

There are also occasions where hikers will be carrying both hiking poles and an ice axe. Pretty common on the PCT in the Sierra.

What is the frame height? I know the torso length is adjustable but how tall is the actual frame?

del

"Perhaps there is a trick?"

Simply put your trekking pole tip in the loop, then rotate your pole once or twice like a clock hand. Secure the handle at the top of the bag with whatever attachment is provided.

del

I see no reason the advertised design wouldn't carry 50 pounds well, if the execution fulfills its potential. It is similar to things Osprey (among others) have been doing for years, just with less fat.

This is not directly related, but the continued chatter portraying American style thruhikers as the most rigorous users (espoused in the SMD product blurb) ought to stop. Absurd is one of the more mild words which comes to mind. Find those people carrying truly light 50+ pound loads and you'll be on the right track.