Kakwa 55 vs ULA Circuit?

The Kakwa is my favorite pack hands down. Transfers weight amazingly to the hips, is comfortable, and attractive on top of that. Being that it’s made from Ultra, making it highly water resistant make it a no brainer. Go with the Kakwa.

I would order both, try it to see how your kit fits in it and then return the one you don’t like. While you will not be able to tell which is comfortable without going on a long hike, you can at least very quickly eliminate the one that doesn’t work for you….sometimes.

For the things you are mentioning, I know that Kakwa 40 will not work and who knows Kakwa 55 may also not work – for example 3 person tent, daughters gear, food for 3 etc. I found the Kakwa 40 to be pretty small compared to say other comparable 38 liter and 48 liter packs. Unfortunately everybody has different ways/methods of measuring volume even though there are supposedly standards with ping-pong balls or whatever. Maybe the Kakwa 55’s front mesh pocket is larger – but the one in Kakwa 40 was too small.

Maybe a ULA Catalyst or if you really want to go ultralight Zpacks Arc Haul Ultra 70 may work better or a HMG 3400 if it fits you properly. But definitely buy, try and return it. I know ULA, Zpacks, HMG, Durston gear will take it back if it doesn’t work for you as long as you don’t dirty it or use it too much:-)

Regarding bear canisters, many people prefer to carry these horizontally in a pack but that’s hard to do in a 55L pack because if the pack is that wide, it’s probably more than 55L. For this, I use a fairly tapered shape in the Kakwa 55 (33″ bottom circumference yet 42″ top circumference) so that you can fit many canisters horizontally near the top but I can’t make the top wide enough for the largest canisters or the shape gets a bit ridiculous.

The top circumference in the Circuit is reported to be 38″ (vs 42″ for the Kakwa) and both packs taper narrower from there, so the ULA should fit canisters to about 36″ circumference while the Kakwa 55 to about 40″. As a result, several mid sized canisters like the BV475 ( 37″) and Bearikade Weekender (39.5″) will fit in the Kakwa but not the Circuit. The Kakwa also has a Y shaped top strap larger canisters can go there, while they’d have to go vertically in the Circuit.

Re. the Arc Haul 70L, it is quite a bit lighter at 22 oz vs 29oz but most of that weight difference is due to excluded features. That’s great if you don’t want hipbelt pockets, Y top strap, and shoulder strap pockets but if you do want these then the Arc Haul is up to a fairly similar 27oz.

To the question of durability, low stretch knit mesh (Kakwa, Arc Haul, HMG) is quite more durable than lycra mesh (ULA), while for the main fabric Ultra 200 (Arc Haul, Kakwa) is quite a bit more durable than 210D nylon (ULA).

The Bearikade Scout is pretty small. I’d think it would be the go to canister for mid and even small sized packs. I can get five days worth of food in mine. I mention this because it may make a difference for folks in terms of the pack they choose. Plus, the Scout is light and a joy to carry.

Though the diameter is the same at 8.7 inches for all Bearikades. While height is the difference between the various Bearikades. I think BV500 may stand a better chance as it is 8 inches in diameter…Kakwa and most other backpacks have lots of height – it is the diameter that is the problem. Of course carrying it up empty outside the pack solves all problems.

*fair warning, thread diversion*

I’ve never understood why anyone would carry their canister empty on top of the pack. I understand the physics of it. But why put all your food smell inside your pack all sweating day, in bear infested territory, just to put it “safely” back into the can at night? All the while, still having all your food smell in your pack? Unless, of course, you’re using nylo-fume bags or otherwise for the food. To those that might say they’ve never had an issue with it, then might raise the question… Is it really all necessary then, in most scenarios, to use a bear canister? I’ve found very unique ways to hang a bag in areas where you typically “couldn’t” hang.

This isn’t about pro canister or pro bag. It’s about, if you do the above mentioned food trade, with no consequences. Are the bears or otherwise, really all that interested in your food smell? And if not, why are you carrying the big bulky canister? Aside from being told to.

*end rant

I am sure the bear can smell food through the bear canister. After having tried to open the canister, they give up and have learnt that they cannot get into the can and leave it alone is what I have heard. Of course there are stories of bears throwing the can down a cliff to break it or some AT bears have figured out how to open a BV 500 etc. Also, if I was doing empty bear can on top, then I would use opsack – maybe two of them inside the backpack.

Of course, habituated bears know where there are humans, there is food. So irrespective of if there is food smell or not, if it smells humans, it may come nose around to see if it can find some food.

On the JMT, you will see lots of folks doing the can on top – because lets face it – the can is a pain in the butt to fit into a backpack. And they love their smaller backpacks.

Ike: there isn’t a wrong choice here (which makes it harder, I know). Realistically, the one that fits you more comfortably will be the better choice; you’ll probably need to buy one of each to figure that out though. Fortunately, it’s easy to sell either secondhand for a minimal loss — think of it like a rental fee for whichever one you end up selling.

If you trust the annual PCT gear survey, ULA Circuit and Catalyst packs are consistently highly rated and highly utilized. Practically speaking, this means a whole bunch of people used the pack every day for ~100 days and were still happy with it at the end. That’s quite a testament from a subset of people who have a lot of extra time to think about what they love and don’t love about their kit. That doesn’t mean these packs are the ~best~ choice; I think it does suggest that one of these ULA packs is rarely a bad choice.

ULA’s standard packs are made with “Robic 400”, which I assume is 400D (or maybe 420D).  It’s possible it’s 210D like Dan said, but I can say the fabric of my Ohm is significantly burlier than both the 210D Dyneema-X from RSBTR and the 210dx that MLD has used. I think the durability difference between Ultra 200 and ULA’s Robic 400 is insignificant for your described use case. The difference in mesh fabric, like Dan was saying, may matter.

I have packs in both Ultra 200 (MLD Exodus) and Robic 400 (ULA Ohm 2.0), and I prefer the Ultra 200. In general, I prefer pack fabrics that are more rigid (laminates, like Ultra): they’re easier to pack, easier to find things inside, less noodle-y when wet.  Obviously that’s a quality-of-life thing — both fabrics will very effectively protect and hold your stuff.

If I were in your shoes, I’d pick the Kakwa — I think it has more upside, and I’m an obsessive optimizer. If you just want to choose once with confidence that you’ll be happy, I think the Circuit is the safer choice; it’s very unlikely you won’t like it.

Thanks for all the advice! I ended up pulling the trigger on the Kakwa 55. My plan had been to sell my current pack to offset the cost (and save room in the closet), and but I think I’ll keep it for family trips and just use the Kakwa when I do solo trips with longer mileage and lower base weight.

Adding the diameter and heigh twice it looks like BV450 is ~34in circumference. As such, it fits horizontally in my Kakwa 40 (36″ top, 31″ bottom) until about the last 6 inches or so from the bottom – right to about the top of the side pockets. This is actually fine because I usually place down bag/jacket and camp gear at the bottom and then the canister on top.

At what point in the Kakwa 55 (42″ top, 33″ bottom) does the BV475 stop and can’t fit any lower?

It may fit all the way to the bottom because I expect it has rounded corners such that the girth is a bit less than the height + length x 2.

Thanks Dan, yeah that was my conservative estimate. It’s probably 1-2 inches shorter. Well if anyone knows for sure let me know!

Probably won’t help, but I recently purchased a Kakwa 40. Have always used frameless packs and gone light and it was time to get a new pack. I went with the Kakwa 40 because for a VERY small (and in some cases no) weight penalty you get a pack with a legit frame while still being a minimalist/ultralight pack. Time will tell if it suits my needs and I like, but seemed like a no brainer when most other packs that weigh the same are frameless.

I originally was considering the Kakwa 55, but it isn’t in stock currently and thought about it some more. I’ve gotten by with smaller packs in the past and, although my overall base weight has increased over the years for comfort reasons (larger shelter, NeoAir instead a few sections of Z-rest, Pocket Rocket instead of alcohol stove, bring rain pants now, etc) it’s still sub-12 pounds instead of sub 10-lbs, and the Kakwa 40 is plenty big. I might consider the Kakwa 55 if I was carrying kids’ gear, but if that was the case I may also consider a different pack altogether. Something that carried heavier weights more comfortably for sustained periods. The Kakwas can carry those heavier weights, but seems like they’re best suited for brief periods at heavier loads, like after a resupply or where you have to haul water where the weight will rapidly decrease pretty quickly and those loads are temporary.

Have you considered the Atom Packs Mo? At least, I’m currently deciding between the Kakwa 55 and the Mo. Any thoughts?

regards
reto