May 13, 2014 at 5:06 pm #1316794
Maia JordanBPL Member
@maiaLocale: Rocky Mountains
Companion forum thread to:May 14, 2014 at 9:32 am #2102329
Nice review Luke, very informative.
"It was just over two pounds and rated to carry up to 53 pounds…"
Did you weigh the empty pack? ExPed's website lists it at 41 ounces, which is 2 lb 9 ounces, considerably more than just over 2 pounds.
Seeing your photos, it appears that the waistbelt and stay are fully removable if the load is light enough to go frameless, correct?May 14, 2014 at 10:00 am #2102338
Aaron PattBPL Member
@apatt_tmLocale: Southern NH
Thank you for your review. I am glad to see a review that focuses on load transfer and hipbelt integration rather than one that simply ends the conversation after a comparison of lightweight fabrics. I have tried the UL grocery sack and hated the poor hipbelts sewn to the sides of the backpack with no real thought to load transfer. Your post covers what I always considered should be the logical extension of thought when it comes to the evolution of UL packs, i.e. how well do they transfer loads to the hips; how to maximize the load capacity so that the pack works well at lighter and heavier loads; and how to maximize load transfer to (most important point) allow you to stay out in the field longer (more food and water carried).
I happen to be one of the people that finds carrying on shoulder uncomfortable and have wanted to see a review like this one for some time. Thanks again.May 14, 2014 at 10:24 am #2102345
Jacques de PlumeBPL Member
Thanks for the review. I've been using this pack for the last year and think it's great for times when you need to carry heavier loads like when packrafting. The compression straps going OVER the side pockets is completely ridiculous. I eventually ended up modifying it myself:
After the modification and shortening some of the straps etc. weight is 1060 grams (37.4 oz)May 14, 2014 at 10:28 am #2102347
Old weights if I recall were 35 oz for the 45 liter version and 38 for the 60 liter version. Mine weighs 38 oz on my scale. I just checked the current website and you're right it is 41 oz. Also looks like the compression straps MIGHT have been changed from one picture. The other pictures still show the original version of the pack.
To answer your other question the frame is removable but you can't use the pack without it. The shoulder harness and hipbelt have nothing to attach to if you take it off.
Glad it helped I also like to get the load off my shoulders for the most part.
Jacques that is a very nice mod on your pack, I just might try that one myself (if I can find time).May 14, 2014 at 10:40 am #2102349
Eric GjonnesBPL Member
Nice review Luke. Would the compression straps work well for securing clumbsy tools such as a shovel? Or will that mess up its original intent?May 14, 2014 at 11:13 am #2102365
Luke, thanks for the fast update. Upon closer review of the pics I realized my question was dumb.
I emailed Exped asking if they could estimate when the version with the newly designed pockets would be on the market. Hope I hear back.
Great mod work Jacques!May 14, 2014 at 11:57 am #2102381
@dandruLocale: Down Under
I wanted to buy this pack but the lumbar pad protruded into my back and was so uncomfortable that I decided against it.May 14, 2014 at 12:15 pm #2102390
Eric I attached snowshoes to mine once using a separate piece of webbing around the pack. Because the straps are so thin I'd be a bit concerned about tearing them out if you put something really heavy under them. Hope that makes sense. A piece of webbing run between the frame and pack worked fine and didn't stress things.May 15, 2014 at 9:45 am #2102617
Exped USA emailed me today to say that all Lighting packs shipped as 2014 stock have the lower compression strap routed through the side pockets instead of over them. REI for sure should have this new design.May 15, 2014 at 10:37 am #2102633
That is great to hear, I got used to living without side pockets but it makes the pack much more functional for other people. Great beginners pack since its relatively light and adjustable. If you decide a medium isn't your size you can just adjust instead of buying a new pack.May 15, 2014 at 12:58 pm #2102663
Adam KlagsBPL Member
@klagsLocale: Northeast USA
Dude, this has to be one of the best write-ups/reviews I've read on this site so far. I also think it covers a very important topic. There are so many backpackers out there, like me, that just can't quite get down to the weight needed for a truly frameless or UL pack. I haven't tried the new zpacks frame pack yet, but I also like this idea of the single stay. I wish more companies produced packs that were truly designed to hold 30-35 lbs comfortably. Many of us in the northeast USA need a beefier pack made of slightly more durable material, and because many of us use lightweight tents like Big Agnes fly creek or sleeping bags instead of quilts, being able to carry the full 32 lbs on my back comfortably means a lot. I have found most packs that carry this weight to bottom out around 2 lbs 7 oz (Osprey Talon is my current pack… but there are many other brands around 2.5 to 2.8 lbs per pack, but they all struggle to carry a 35 lb load comfortably.) If more manufactureres could produce packs around 2 lbs that carried about 35 lbs comfortably, they'd be selling like crazy. Right now Osprey seems to have the lock on that market… I'd like to see some more options. Tell me what I'm missing if you have any other recommendations? Seems like the zpacks is also on the edge in terms of weight carried, right?
(Edited because I used the word tent where I meant to write pack :)May 17, 2014 at 2:36 am #2103250
Derek M.BPL Member
@dmusasheLocale: Pacific Northwest
I couldn't have put it better myself.
I'm so tired seeing UL pack after UL pack whose sole defining feature seems to be that it is lightweight– effective weight transfer to the hips be damned.
It's sort of maddening actually…
Nice to see a review that covers the features of a pack that I find salient, even if they don't exactly line up with the current vogue in the UL and SUL community here these days.May 21, 2014 at 5:26 am #2104621
Aaron PattBPL Member
@apatt_tmLocale: Southern NH
I started hiking in 1980. We used aluminum frame packs and shortly thereafter internal frame packs came out. Pricey, some were very heavy. I forget who talked about this recently, citing the historical evolution, but it was a good read….to be fair Will R. has done some terrific reviews and he spends time discussing weight transfer. Now that we've digested the news and specs on cuben fiber and other lightweight materials, I am hoping someone will do a really deep dive on transfer of weight, comparing hipbelts, and the attachments of internal frames and how the work with or connect to the hipbelt.
As I said of myself, I've done a lot of shoulder carry but really don't like it. Because of the discomfort level for me, I've decided to stick with a pack that puts as much weight on the hips as possible.
Nice to know I wasn't alone with my thoughts :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.