Seek Outside Unaweep or Revolution

For those not initiated, here’s the kind of load this thread is about… typically, 80 lbs+ packed out of wilderness, off-trail, often in blowdown hell. A pack for this application has different requirements than a typical backpack. And yes, everytime I use the otherwise supremely comfortable Bora, I curse the damn side-pull hipbelt :)

I was looking for the SO to replace it… not to be:

I don’t mind the gatekeepers at all. I’m not in my 20s and no one wants to see me in skinny jeans, least of all me.

I don’t mind the gatekeepers at all. I’m not in my 20s and no one wants to see me in skinny jeans, least of all me.

You’ve used them with 80lb loads, and in winter conditions?

Thanks Brad for the neato pics.  Up to date pics explain everything without a whole lot of words.

I’m really into replaceable belt buckles because over the years I have occasionally stepped on one during a trip with this result—

So having a spare hipbelt buckle is vital.  I think the new SO hipbelt system fixes this problem—field replaceable.

As far as the gatekeepers and web loops, these loops can accommodate the pictured side release female buckle by getting the loop to slide inside—and then removing the GK and adding the male SR buckle (?Do I have that right?).

But yes, I was raised on Fastex side release buckles (my beloved North Face 1980 pack).  Fool proof, strong, that reassuring CLICK—and easy with mittens at Zero degrees.  Gatekeepers at 0F?  Have fun, boys.  Imagine that the web loop is frozen solid because it got soaked yesterday and this morning it’s frozen solid and stiff because at midnight the temps dipped to 10F.  Now try to remove/attach the half dozen GKs.

I know all about wet webbing which freezes solid—and the cursing which comes when trying to fumble with such intricate gear using mittens etc.

Hi Walter, yes totally agree with you on the ability to field-replace a hipbelt buckle (the most important one on the pack).

However, as I’ve said there were ways around a side pull that also maintains the ability to replace the buckle (although, not sure why the original wasn’t field-replaceable… certainly looks like it is).

Here’s the forward-pull arrangement on my ULA Catalyst… 100% field replaceable:

And Brad, regarding your latest pack pics (ironic ain’t it to be talking about this stuff on UL website)—I too hump tremendous loads because my pack has to supply me for 21 days in the winter w/o interruption.

Here I am preparing for a 23 day winter trip in the mountains of NC.

Point is with my pic—not to show me off—but to wonder and hope a Seek Outside pack can do the same—hump a big load in comfort.  And without undue cursing.  No amount of online cyber hiking will tell me if a Brooks pack can perform for me on one of my trips.  It’s called “Make an order and take a chance.”

Brad, the ladderlocks providing the tension on that belt are not field replaceable.  The 1.5″ ladderlock on our old belt wasn’t field replaceable.

The new system is completely field replaceable.

Ah, NC!

I humped a lot of VERY heavy packs in those mountains in July 1977. Was on my HS break and decided to hike north that summer from Springer Mountain. Took a plane from the frozen North, hitchiked to Springer. Turned 16 on the GA/NC border. I think I did a bit over 650 miles in the two months I had to walk. Definitely took my time :) There was a heat wave/drought that summer and at times carried 65lbs… a lot of weight for a skinny 135lb kid!

You look very stout Walter. I’m only 5’10”, 157 lbs. I fully embrace “light is right”, and typically can keep my pack sub 35lbs for a summer week of backpacking. Still, “light is right” only until it isn’t… winter conditions aren’t especially one of those. And a hunting pack by definition precludes UL, though my rifle and binoculars are pretty light. :)

Brad, the ladderlocks providing the tension on that belt are not field replaceable.  The 1.5″ ladderlock on our old belt wasn’t field replaceable.

The new system is completely field replaceable.

And there was no other option?

There’s always another design option.

.

…

So are they not letting you return it Brad?

So are they not letting you return it Brad?

You really think that’s the point of this whole thread?

No Brad. That would be about you.

Brad, I haven’t posted on 24HR in a while, but I am currently logged in. I stop by every few days to see if there are any PMs , and my browser almost always has me logged in. So feel free to PM or even send an email to our info to be forwarded to me.

We have let him return it. I have offered to see if I could find the parts of what he is looking for which sounds like a captured lumbar pad capable pack with fastex on the talon and a pull forward belt.  I certainly respect your opinion and the fact that you are trying to help us improve.  I know that needing to fiddle with it to get it where you want can be frustrating, but it is relatively easy to get the forward pull on a dual belt and it is way more survivable / field replaceable. The ladder lock on those can be a source of frustration .. not just us but on the big name packs as well for people that do a lot of cold weather load hauling / climbing etc.

It is important to note that there has been pretty broad testing on a lot of the testers were not occasional users. Andrew who you referenced did a lot of GK testing last fall hauling out late season Elk in areas of Montana / Idaho and Wyoming. We sent many dual buckle belts to some of our harder users and everyone after using them a while came down on the side of preferring the dual. Some had a strong preference and some a minimal one. If there was a bad comment it was that some like the feel of forward pull, but did not feel it was needed.

Thanks

No Brad. That would be about you.

Not at all, but you don’t know the entirety of the history leading to this exchange, which goes back several years.

I don’t make knee-jerk observations. You obviously do.

Kevin, while I (obviously) can’t be stronger in my dissent, I wish you the best.

I’ve gone to their website and watched YT videos. I must confess…I’m not getting what the attraction is to these packs.

Wiia, did you have the chance to read my review here of the 1st generation Seek Outside, from back in early 2014?  The guts of the system haven’t changed since, nor has my opinion of it.  Unlike the other 50+ pound capable packs I’ve used they don’t feel overly constricting at 20 pounds, and for me they carry 70+ better than anything else.  As has been on display in this thread, the details are perhaps still searching for cohesion.  Whether it makes sense for you to spend a lot on high performance, modestly refined product depends on your needs (and preferences).

David. No, I have not seen your review but will look for it.

As far as money spent, I own four backs one of which is a McHale and I can’t think of another backpack more expensive than that.  I am perfectly happy to spend excessively if I can get what I want.

I am perfectly happy to spend excessively if I can get what I want.

+1

Which is why I offered to pay (whatever) to get a 2016 model made.

I am still in absolute shock anyone could remotely consider the little “gatekeepers” with their difficult to thread attachment even remotely the equivalent of a simple  fastex buckle… I’ll get over the disbelief in time obviously. Talk about doubling down on silliness. Good grief. I could maybe get past the hipbelt, maybe. But not the gatekeepers.

Brad—You’re bringing up the whole philosophy of forward-marching technologies which in many ways are steps backwards.  A case in point are power windows in cars—when roll up windows work fine.  In fact, when a power window fails it is useless—and has to be kept up permanently.  Not so hand cranked windows.

Same with gatekeepers versus side release/quick release buckles.  The old fastex buckles worked great for 50 years, so are GKs an improvement?  Probably NOT.  Why then this so-called improvement?

Which takes me to Gram counting—lightness at all costs.  And so we have a forward leaning technology taking a step backwards—unless lightness is the only consideration.  Which on this forum might be true.

I was all set to buy a Seek Outside pack back in 2016 and called customer service for information regarding torso sizing and fit. The website at the time listed which packs were optimal for torso sizes. I called asking if I was going to need the 2″ or 4″ extensions and was told…and I quote: “Torso size doesn’t matter when it comes to fit”. Umm…when I’m trying to decide how to order the pack, it certainly does. I stopped any research at that time.

I guess I’m confused about the gatekeeper/buckle issue. A new pack is going to come with gatekeeper connectors. No choice.

Does that means that it is now impossible to have buckles or can the gatekeepers be easily switched out by the purchaser and replaced with the buckles?

@ Thomas, torso length certainly affects backpack fit, sorry for any miscue there.  In general, up to 30 lbs the standard 24″ frame fits torsos up to 17-19″.  20+” torsos at up to 30 lbs may need the 2″ extensions.  As weights get heavier, the need for shoulder lift will increase.

There is a chart and details on this blog post that walks you through our adjustable frame height.

https://seekoutside.com/blog/which-frame-height-is-right-for-me/

“Does that means that it is now impossible to have buckles or can the gatekeepers be easily switched out by the purchaser and replaced with the buckles?”

All our packs will come with gatekeepers.  Response by people who have actually used them has been very good for the most part, with minimal dissent.

It is possible to switch the gatekeepers out for other buckles – slotted SR, gear aid, STS, etc.  We’re not supporting or selling parts for that switch because honestly it’s been a non-issue.  I repeat, people who have actually used the gatekeepers in the field by and large like them.

https://www.rei.com/product/850234/sea-to-summit-1-pin-side-release-field-repair-buckle

Given the tone this thread has started to have I feel compelled to state that my interaction with Seek Outside, although not extensive, was top notch.  I had a question or two and stated a concern I had at the time and they answered my questions and resolved my concern in a professional and timely manner.