Dan Durston pack in the works at Drop.com

[Doug Coe]

I just saw this thread on Reddit on a new pack designed by Dan. Cool ideas!

Here’s the Drop (formerly Massdrop) link on the item (not yet for sale).

I can’t wait for more photos of that/those left side pockets.

[Gunnar H]

It is available for $120 now, I bought a M/L. Delivery April 3, 2020.

[Bruce Tolley]

“I can’t wait for more photos of that/those left side pockets.”

There are lots of photos in the Drop announcement. I also see what appears to be a Durston tent stuffed in the big outer pocket.

[jscott]

I’m curious about the removable frame. Any pics of that?

[Alex Wallace]

Looks pretty good except for the hipbelt, which appears to just be “wings” sewn to the sides of the pack.

 

Jeffrey, here’s a pic of the removable frame:

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

The hipbelt is 8.5″ wings. They are a permanent part of the pack. I think the setup works well for the 20 – 35 lbs loads this is intended for. Unlike some other packs, the upside down “U” frame connects right to the base of the hipbelt wings, so you have a solid connection there for load transfer (versus a pack that uses two bars closer to the center). The back of the pack has a foam pad and there is only horizontal structure at the top (at the load lifters) so you avoid barreling at the top yet at the bottom the pack can curve around your back. So you end up wrapped in padding and with a solid connection to the frame. I know there’s some push for lumbar pads etc, but the shape of this frame is designed to fit into the lumbar area (e.g. it’s not just straight rods) so I think anything better would be a lot heavier. IMO, this setup is a lot more load capable than something like a HMG Windrider which does have a lumbar pad but lacks load lifters and any sort of horizontal structure.

[jscott]

thanks for the explanation Dan. Weight transfer onto my hips is crucial for me. Many ‘stay’; style frames don’t cut it for me. So this is an interesting design.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

I’ll offer an expanded critique of the common dual frame stay configuration.

Dual frame stays are used in many lightweight packs (e.g. SWD, HMG, Hanchor etc) where they are commonly aluminum bars (but can be carbon rod). They commonly are positioned vertically on the back and inward from the sides by a few inches (hard to sew into the edges). Placing them inward from the sides also has the advantage of lining them up with the load lifters (if applicable).

There are a few disadvantages to this arrangement:
1) There is no horizontal structure at all. As such, a pack that is quite full will tent to “barrel” into a rounded shape since there is nothing keeping the back flat, as a traditional framesheet would. This rounded shape moves the weight back away from the wearers shoulders (requiring more forward lean to compensate with worse ergonomics) and that rounded pack is more prone to rock side to side.

2) Having the bars inwards from the sides is problematic for the hipbelt wing connection. If the hipbelt wings are sewn into the side seams, then the wings are several inches away and thus the frame and hipbelt are disconnected so load transfer suffers. A common solution is to move the hipbelt wings inwards too, as we see with HMG packs where the wings were originally in the side seams but later a lumbar pad was added with the wings coming out the sides of this closer to the frame stays. This does solve the disconnect in load transfer, but brings two additional problems. The lesser problems is that it makes the pack more complicated/heavier/harder to sew. The larger problem is that as you move the hipbelt wing attachment inward from the sides and closer to the center, you run into the barrelling problem again. As the wings are sewn closer to the center the pack is increasingly free to barrel at the bottom since all that was preventing that is the forward pull of the wings. So moving the wings inward increases barrelling at the bottom which (1) moves the load back and (2) the load starts to swing side to side as you walk. If you imagine a hipbelt connected at a single point in the center, it’s easy to imagine how that pack would swing side to side.

So in my opinion, a better approach for a simple frame is make the frame wider, not the hipbelt attachment narrower. An inverted U frame allows this. You can position it and the hipbelt wings right at the sides of the pack where (1) the frame doesn’t push on the wearers back (requiring padding to mitigate), (2) barrelling is minimized, (3) the back of the pack is now free to fully wrap around the wearer (the opposite of barrelling) and (4) you still have a direct connection to the hipbelt. So you get a wider, more stable, less barrelled setup.

At the top of the pack, an inverted U frame also has the advantages of preventing barrelling here because of the horizontal cross piece, so you tend to have a flatter pack that sits closer to the shoulders rather than hanging pack.

I’m not aware of a good justification for using bar stock over an inverted U frame. As far as I can tell it’s just a heavier way of doing something while having more problems with barrelling/horizontal structure, and complicating/degrading load transfer at the hipbelt attachment.

[John Vance]

Dan,

Do you know the dimensions of the hip belt pockets and length from padding end to padding end on the hipbelt of the M/L?

[Gumbo]

Looks like a great frame setup and design. I hate to bring up such a trivial, functionally irrelevent and opinionated issue, but damn, that’s an ugly color combination…

[William Chilton]

I like the colour. It looks stealthy without being camouflage.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

A few folks do seem to dislike the color combo. I think part of it is that the studio photos are over exposed (so the background can be removed) which has the effect of making the lighter material look white when it is actually a light-medium grey. The image of someone with the pack is more true to color:

Do you know the dimensions of the hip belt pockets and length from padding end to padding end on the hipbelt of the M/L?

The wing is 8.5″ from end to end.  I don’t have one handy to measure but the pocket is about 1.5″ shorter that, so 7″ +/- 0.5″.

[Alex Wallace]

Thanks for the insight on the hipbelt and frame design, Dan. Makes sense. With a stiff backpanel and/or lumbar pad, or internal stays located more towards the center of the spine, hipbelt wings don’t allow for a full wrap around your hips, which is why I initially disliked the design.

I look forward to reviews when this thing hits the market.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

Yes, as you say, it free to fully wrap around the hips at the bottom because there isn’t horizontal structure here. The padding wings and padding back panel essentially serve as one padded area that is uninhibited from wrapping around the hips.

[Dan Madden]

It would be helpful in ‘visualizing’ the load out if you could provide actual dimensions of the pack, i.e., Length (measured to the top of the load lifters) x width x depth? Volume numbers vary so much that it’s hard to make a fair comparison to other packs…Thanks!

[John Vance]

There are circumference measurements that are very helpful and in some ways may be a more reliable way to compare.  Given a 10.5” width, you can interpolate depth as height is given.

[Adam Kramer]

great looking pack at a baller price. i’m confused about the small zipper on the side of the pack? where does this lead to? the first picture that alex wallace posted. thanks in advance!

[Bruce Tolley]

@ Adam I am sure Dan will respond with specifics but there are many more photos and a detailed list of features on the MassDrop site at the link pasted in above by Gunnar in the second post in this thread..

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

It would be helpful in ‘visualizing’ the load out if you could provide actual dimensions of the pack
Check out the specs on the Drop 40L Pack page:
https://drop.com/buy/drop-40l-backpack-designed-by-dan-durston/details#details

But in short the M/L size is 30.5″ bottom circ, 34.5″ top circ. and 34.5″ unrolled height. Theoretically if you didn’t roll it shut at all it would be 48L, but actually rolling it a couple times drop it to the 43L spec.

I’m confused about the small zipper on the side of the pack? where does this lead to?
That is the best feature of the pack that few people are going to appreciate until they try it. Until now, packs have struggled to put mid-sized items within easy reach. If you have an item like a hat, big camera, guidebook etc then you might wish to have it handy, but it won’t fit into traditional on-the-go storage like hipbelt and shoulder strap pockets. You could stuff it in a side pocket but it’s many not that secure and a bit hard to grab. This unique side pocket changes that by providing a space for larger items that’s within easy reach.

For the construction, imagine a side pocket built of two fabric panels (side, bottom) so it is an actual 3D shape (rather than just a single panel like a lot of stretchy side pockets). Now imagine two of these side pockets sewn together into a double walled side pocket, and a zip that accesses between them. So the zipper isn’t accessing merely into the side wall, but actually the space between the walls can be just as large as the space inside the side pocket. You can put large stuff like water bottles, bear spray etc all through this zipper. Of course also filling the pocket from the top competes for that same space (even though they are separate compartments), but it’s large enough that you can toss a water bottle in the top and still have ample space inside the zipper for a hat, camera, huge phone etc.

The idea for it came from thinking about bottom pockets (e.g. Pa’lante) which are so handy but mesh on the bottom of a pack is a durability compromise, and they’re not that secure in the sense that you wouldn’t want to put a camera here since it could fall out or be landed upon. So this site pocket accomplishes the same thing – putting bigger stuff within easy reach without taking off the pack, without compromises in durability or security. Once you get used to hiking while yanking out hats, mitts, maps etc without breaking stride the value of this pocket quickly becomes obvious. Of course the taller side pocket makes it harder to reach bottles inserted in the top, but the right side pocket is a normal one, so you mostly use that one for drinking and then if you have a second bottle you keep in the top of the left side pocket, with bear spray, mitts etc inside the zipper.

[Dan Madden]

Thanks… but these dimensions are the ones I am trying to clarify, i.e., yes, we can interpolate but there are too many variable to come up with an accurate answer, not to mention having a different circumference for the top and bottom only creates more confusion. It’s not a big deal but if you have the actual dimensions handy it would be appreciated… if not, we can all move on.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

I don’t have a pack in front of me to verify on the physical product, but I’ll provide the design specs which should be very close. The physical pack can differ due to manufacturing tolerances, the fabric not laying perfectly flat etc.

The widths of the back, side and front panels all taper wider as you go up the pack, so I’ll provide the specs for the bottom, top of main compartment (e.g. shoulder straps) and top of the roll top:

Backpanel is 10.5″ / 11.5″ / 12″ wide
The side panels are 6″ / 7″ / 7.5″
The front panel is 8″ / 10″ / 11:

So the circumference is 30.5″ / 35.5″ / 37″ in theory. The specs on the Drop site are physical measurements from the product and they provide a circumference of 30.5″ (bottom, matches theory) and 34.5″ which I think they measured near the shoulders (so close to the theoretical 35.5″), not at the top of the roll top.

For height specs, the main compartment is 20.5″ or 22.5″ tall (bottom to load lifters) depending on the size, with a 12″ roll top in addition for a 32.5 or 34.5″ unrolled height. Hipbelt is 4″ tall, so mid-hipbelt to load lifters is 18.5″ or 20.5″, and the shoulder straps are 3.5″ lower, so 15″ or 17″. Torsos that are between the shoulder strap and load lifter heights should fit well, so 15-18.5″ (S/M) or 17 – 20.5″ (M/L).

_____________________________________

Per Instagram, BPL is working on a review of this pack. It sounds like their thoughts will be out relatively soon.

[Dan Madden]

Thank you for taking the time to put together the information on the actual dimensions… super appreciated and very helpful in organizing my thought process of what would go where in this pack, i.e., can I fit a tent horizontally and/or vertically? We all have our ‘systems’ as to how we load our packs and having the actual dimensions provides the information I need to see if this pack would work for me… based on your information, I’m thinking it will…

[Monty Montana]

” if you have a second bottle you keep in the top of the left side pocket, with bear spray, mitts etc inside the zipper.”

I would caution about keeping bear spray inside a zippered side pocket. One would want to have it immediately if not sooner available: if a grizzly (which we have plenty of in the Bob) happens to charge from 50′ away at 35 mph, you’ve got about 1 second to react!  For that reason I always carry my spray in a shoulder pocket, which your pack has, and as per our previous conversation on Massdrop, it will fit a regular sized canister.  (Why did they change their name?  It sucks.)

Happy trails.

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

“can I fit a tent horizontally and/or vertically?”
Mostly it depends on what tent you have, since the minimum length varies a lot. It’s much nicer to pack a tent that doesn’t have poles or struts, like my X-Mid tents. Then you can pack it into a relatively short package (e.g. 12″) that will store horizontally. I do that with it at the bottom when the tent is mostly dry, or I pack it vertically behind the front pocket if it’s wet (so it doesn’t drip on other gear).

More traditional tents have long packed sizes that rarely work horizontally. These form a longer/slim shape that you could store horizontally in the pack, in the taller left side pocket, or behind the front pocket. Storing any tent horizontally outside the pack on top is also an option, although a less secure one (I lost a tent bushwacking like this once, but it was on snow so I could follow my tracks back 20 min to find it).

“I would caution about keeping bear spray inside a zippered side pocket. ”
That’s a good point. I agree. I’ve gotten very quick blinding reaching this zipper, but I realize I may fail to do so in the moment, and even with perfect execution it would be slower than in the shoulder strap pocket. The shoulder strap pockets fit a 12oz bear spray really nicely since it securely holds the bottle yet the top is quickly grasped for removal with nothing to unzip or open, so the shoulder strap pockets are the ideal spot for bear spray.

[Sam C]

I know there is a thread over at Drop about this pack, but since we are also here…

Why does the torso length max out at 19″ for the M/L?  Specifically, why is there not a taller option?

Also, the Drop page for this pack says that the price will go up once the pack is in stock, which is expected to be in stock near the end of August 2019 yet the Details page gives an estimated ship date of April 2020.   Which is it?

[Author]

Posts