SWD Wolverine 90L

I’ve been searching for a lightweight backpack for a long time and I finally found it in the SWD Wolverine 90L. Things I like about it:

1. Big enough for anything I need it for. I’m not someone who needs several backpacks depending on the situation.

2. Big ass belt buckle. This has been a pet peeve of mine for UL backpacks. Small belt buckles dig into my belly

3. Store my Bearikade weekender horizontally. Shown in the last image is the bearikade at the bottom. I wouldn’t store it here if my bag was packed, but this is the smallest part of the pack and it still fits.

4. I don’t like tall bags, I can compress this where the top is below my neck. Because it’s so big, the bag full with gear will hide nicely behind my torso instead of extending up past my shoulders. I also feel more stable with bags like this. Maybe it’s my body type.

Love this pack.

Pretty sweet. I have the same pack on order. Down to less than 2 months . I’m leaning towards the Ultra 400 front pocket.

Also, this is the first bag that I’ve ever been able to retrieve a Nalgene from the side pocket without taking off the pack. I wish I had not gotten the port hole for a water bladder now because I probably won’t ever use one again.

You should be able to tape the port shut with Ultra TNT tape. I taped the port on my Wolverine.

I’ve been using the Wolverine 70 for the last 3 summers. It’s the pack I’ve been looking for since I retired my 1980’s Gregory Cassin (I’ve been through dozens of packs since then).

It’s Light – 2lbs 12oz’s Size L.

It has twin shapable aluminum stays, not a fixed trampoline frame, or worse yet, no frame.

Because it’s available in a variety of sizes, and has a “real” suspension, the load lifters are actually functional/usable.

Uber comfortable shoulder straps.

Wonderful, wraparound, comfotable hipbelt. I’d forgotten how great a full-encircling belt is (think 1970’s and 80’s).

Burly build, with no more features than needed, and no zippers!

The waterbottle pockets are functional and usable. I special order mine with a cinch closure rather than a fixed elastic closure.

The front pocket is awesome. When I first ordered mine it was built as a standard at 15″ tall. I had them make it 18″ as an extra charge. Now, 18″ is standard.

The supension design is brilliant – just enough to be comfortable, but not so much to add unecessary weight – the perfect balance.

Elastic closure hipbelt pockets are fantastic – large and simple to use.

In May I ordered a size Medium Woverine 70 for my wife, and a UL Long Haul 50 for myself.

Apart from some Seek Outside offerings, no other packs have any interest for me. I’ve finally found a pack built nearly exactly as if I’d designed it. My search is over.

Nice clean pack image Brad! You’re really taking advantage of that outside pocket.

Thanks Baja, I may do that.

> It has twin shapable aluminum stays

Brad, I think that this is—regrettably, at least to me—no longer true. More than a year ago, SWD said that it intended to transition entirely to tubular stays, which are stronger but not user-shapeable.

Joey, can you verify that the stays in your new Wolverine are tubular?

I just received my Wolverine 70 about a month ago, and I can confirm that the stays are tubular.  They are stiffer and ~2 ounces lighter, but they cannot be easily custom bent.  I know this from hard won experience.  I tried to bend them using automotive tubing benders (for softer brake/fuel lines) to ~match the custom bend I’d put in the flat stays on my Long Haul.  One of them crimped, and then snapped when I tried to straighten the crimp.  They are hard – 7075something (printed on the tubing, saw it too late).  The stock bend on their replacements seems fine in tests at home.  I haven’t had a chance to test it in the field yet.

Like Joey, I had them put cinch closures on mine like my SO pack.  I missed them on my LH, and it makes the shock cord replaceable (I’ve had elastic closures relax over time on older packs).

Brad, I think that this is—regrettably, at least to me—no longer true. More than a year ago, SWD said that it intended to transition entirely to tubular stays, which are stronger but not user-shapeable.

I just received my Wolverine 70 about a month ago, and I can confirm that the stays are tubular. They are stiffer and ~2 ounces lighter, but they cannot be easily custom bent. I know this from hard won experience. I tried to bend them using automotive tubing benders (for softer brake/fuel lines) to ~match the custom bend I’d put in the flat stays on my Long Haul. One of them crimped, and then snapped when I tried to straighten the crimp. They are hard – 7075something (printed on the tubing, saw it too late). The stock bend on their replacements seems fine in tests at home. I haven’t had a chance to test it in the field yet.

Wow. What an incredibly regrettable move on the part of SWD. This is a case of “stupid light” if I’ve ever seen it.

Shapable stays are a key ingredient to what set their packs apart. Without this ability, their packs join the ranks of everything else that is out there… fixed-suspension packs are a frggin dime a dozen.

I’m in an email back and forth with @SWDBackpacks now regarding my current order. A “stock” bend doesn’t work for me or my wife. The ability to custom fit stays is what makes this a custom pack for those of us with unusual backs. If I can’t get shapable stays, or source them somewhere, I’ll have to cancel the order and be done with them. I’m absolutely stunned by this news. Talk about ruining the absolutely best pack I’ve seen in decades… unreal.

There can be a real tyranny and group think in UL equipment, and this move is likely evidence of this…

Haha here’s the emerging market for the fifty or so flat bar 7075 stays I have stored in a dusty corner.

Yeah when I was testing tubular stays a couple of years ago I found too many drawbacks to pursue it further. But building the bending jig was fun.

Brad, I too prefer flat stays because I can shape them to my back. On my ULA pack, bending the stay increased the “comfortable carry” limit by about 20%. I imagine that it has an even greater effect for some other people.

My hope is that it’ll be easy to replace the tubular SWD stays with flat stays that we get from elsewhere. If you learn whether this is possible, please let us know!

Related discussion of flat vs. tubular stays: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultralight/comments/18ljmht/. Among other things, Dan Durston weighs in in that thread, saying that flat stays are much more prone to bending when carrying more than 30 pounds (and even when not).

Yes tubular material like SWD’s stuff is incredibly stiff with just a tiny bit of flex and rebound.

On the other hand the Kakwa I saw applies a different alloy and diameter and is bendable like soft metal but without much rebound.

Flat bar falls in between: lots of flex, reliable rebound.

The experienced backpacker having a chance to try various packs will quickly form a valid opinion about frame design.

A new shopper using basic Internet research will arrive at the pack option with most exposure by other newbies.

Thanks for the pics Joey G! It looks like there are some attachment points just under the lip of the front pocket? Any chance you could provide some details on what that entails? I’m assuming it’s not the full horizontal daisy chain we see on the big wild?

I haven’t really looked at this pack until now: it’s a very good design, and very tempting.  I don’t need quite as much rear pocket, but it’s basically built like a lightweight version of my alpine packs, with a few tweaks for more general utility…so I definitely have a use case for this.  Unfortunately, tubular stays are a deal-breaker; if I can’t shape the stay, the chances of the pack actually fitting me are near zero.

On that note…

A user-bendable stay is just that: bendable.  If it can be bent by reasonable effort, reasonable weight will also bend it; the question is therefore whether or not that bend actually has any impact on the load-carrying ability.  In my experience: no, it doesn’t…but a stay that isn’t contoured to my body most certainly does.  Badly-shaped stays are basically like pain dispensers…so I’ve searched a long time for a pack that’ll fit me perfectly and do everything that I want it to do without causing discomfort.  The packs I’ve had made are as close as I’ve gotten to that goal, but they’re still not quite right.  I would absolutely be willing to give the bigger SWD options a shot if the stays had not been changed to tubes, but for now it looks like I’m still better off buying a sewing machine.

It’s not a solution that will work for everyone, but I also have some extra curvature to my back, and I have a 50L wolverine with flat stays that I had custom bent.  Last year I ordered a big wild 70, and I simply mailed them my flat stays and they bent the tubular stays for the big wild to match.  Its now the most comfortable pack I’ve ever owned.

(95L+)

Sockdolager custom tubular stays.

I was told that cinch closures are now being used on all their side pockets.

 It looks like there are some attachment points just under the lip of the front pocket?

These can be used to strap things to the bottom of the pack.

I simply mailed them my flat stays and they bent the tubular stays for the big wild to match

That’s a great solution to those that are interested in these packs and dislike the tubular stays.

Also, I mistyped the liters in the title, it’s a 95 liter pack.

[Noah K] I simply mailed them my flat stays [from an old 50L Wolverine] and they bent the tubular stays for the big wild to match

That’s a great solution to those that are interested in these packs and dislike the tubular stays.

It’s a great solution for those who already have flat stays from an old SWD pack. But will it also work for those whose flat stays are from another pack? For example, if you’ve bent the stays in your old ULA pack to match the curvature of your back, will SWD be willing and able to bend the stays for its own packs to match your ULA stays?

If the stays are the same length, it should work.

Sockdolager claims that they can bend them using a photo as a pattern.

If the stays are the same length, it should work.

Sockdolager claims that they can bend them using a photo as a pattern.

It sounds like a good service. But my concern lies with using stays from one pack as models for stays for a different pack that has a different design. For example, some  packs are designed to use stays terminate close to the center of one’s back, while others are designed to use stays that terminate closer to the points where your back meets your hips. The curvature that works for you in the first case may not be the curvature that works for you in the second case.

Out of curiosity, does all this talk about the new stays being a negative negate all the other great features of the pack? Or is this just like with tents where every tent has a flaw ( to those people who don’t like the trade-off ) because of a trade off the designer made. To me, it seems like a trade off they made so that the user can carry heavier loads.

Kind of makes me think about the folks that love the Durston X Dome tents but not the fiber poles it uses. Usually with tents, when you go lighter, you sacrifice durability.

It might be that if you want to have a heavy carrying backpack you may not want bendable stays because you know they may bend when you don’t want them to.

Just my 2 cents.

Having said that, my load is around 30 lbs all in. I like the bag for the space and ruggedness. I can see that for those that want those things ( light load, space, and ruggedness ) having bendable stays would make it perfect for you guys.