Seek Outside Flight Pack [was Upcoming light packs from SO]

[matthew k]

Proof once again that a great thread becomes even better with a photo that includes a handsome dog. :)

[Brian Goode]

Stumphges

the original Evolution frame works best for my back. The way the material captures the external frame allows your back to actually have zero items against it. The material will actually allow your back to push the pack bag away from your back and if you don’t over compress the bag it will also go away from your back to where the whole bag and frame wrap around you and not push into you. So I have 3 complete evolution setups.

[Thomas H]

I know I asked this earlier in the thread, but would anyone mind posting some photos of the frame taken out of the pack as well as how it secures to the inside of the bag?

 

Thanks!

[Mike M]

I’m sure it comes all the way out, but couldn’t get by the cross piece.  Here’s a few pics

pic of a portion of the cross piece

 

the channel the cross piece is sewn into

and an accurate artist’s rendition of what it would like all the way out :)

[Thomas H]

<p style=”text-align: center;”>Thanks a lot! Their website says that the frame is removable, so odd that the middle is sewn in place with no way to take it out.

</p>
I can see that it is held down with that flap and some ladder locks/buckles for tension.

Does the foam / padding sit in the same pocket, in front of the frame?

[Stumphges]

Mike, is there also a u-shaped piece at the bottom? And is/are the u-shaped piece(s) free to rotate around the vertical stays, or are the joints fixed?

[Mike M]

I’m certain it can be removed, but not sure how (and don’t want to f^ck it up :))

There is no padding in front of the frame- the fabric is very taut in front of the frame (think trampoline)

It feels like there may be a like u-shaped piece on the bottom, but I’ll let Kevin say for sure one way or the other

[Stumphges]

Thanks. I guess a better way to ask is: does the frame twist if you grab the top piece and bottom and twist opposite direction?

[Mike M]

if I twist from the top or bottom, there is a slight twist at the opposite end- seems like it flexes more in the middle of the frame

Kevin will probably pop on pretty soon and can probably post a picture of the entire frame

[Stumphges]

Thank you, Mike.

[kevin timm]

There is a U at the bottom .

The Cross stay can come out , you sort of have to turn the pack half inside out. If you want to save weight, you can cut a cross stay from bamboo flooring and it will work .. or you can take two titanium stakes and crimp them together .. and bend .. or you can just be happy you have a 2.25 lb pack that carries well at 30 plus lbs.

It has a little movement and a little flex. It was not made to be as stiff as our normal frame. IE, it free floats under the top cross bar.

Yes you can use it beltless and frameless if desired and be at 20 ish ounces. Some testers said it worked pretty well without the belt. You could cut a foam pad back panel as well … but to be clear although you can do that stuff … we built it to carry well. For myself, you I could get my all in kit to 10 ish lbs removing that .. or I could use a really good, comfortable setup and be all in around 13-15 .. I choose the latter.
Kevin

[Thomas H]

Thanks Kevin.

I personally like going hipbelt/frame free when backpacking(often ~10-15 lb with food and water) but can carry 20-40 in the winter with mountain gear. Somehow because I have the lightest base weight I end up carrying the rope and trad gear.

[Logan K]

Anyone having any trouble with head clearance with this pack so far?

I’m on the shorter side of torsos and necks (17.0″ torso), and as much as I love my Unaweep when a big pack is required, the frame height/ short torso/ head clearance definitely makes for challenges. My one concern at this point about purchasing this pack is that the top of the pack will be impeding the back of my head and restricting freedom of movement (thinking about steep climbs and route-finding particularly) because I am so short relative to the 22 inch frame height. I know the SO specs say this will work, but can anyone share some experience here?

Thanks everybody,

Logan

[Mike M]

I’m 5’11” with a 20-ish” torso and have the 24″ frame and no issues

[Logan K]

Thanks for the pic, Mike! That looks like an ideal fit.

It is interesting, though, that in Kevin T’s/ Seek Outside’s pack intro video, the fit of the pack Kevin is wearing looks much taller and like it might present the head clearance issues I’m worried about.

Logan

[Philip Tschersich]

Sorry to beat this dead horse, but how is that fit ‘ideal’? The load lifters are doing exactly nothing. I’m 5’11” with a 21” torso and now I’m thinking about canceling my order.

[Jon Solomon]

Mike’s photo looks similar to how the pack fits on me, at 5′ 7″ with a 19.5″ torso.

At first, I thought the same thing, the load lifters are too low to do anything.

In use I discovered that the load lifters still play a really important role. Together with the shoulder straps, they are part of the tension system that adjusts how close the frame lies against the body. That tensioning system determines both air flow to the back and weight distribution between shoulders and hips.

Yes, I did think that it was pretty neat for a pack with a hip belt in its weight class.

[bradmacmt]

Sorry to beat this dead horse, but how is that fit ‘ideal’? The load lifters are doing exactly nothing. I’m 5’11” with a 21” torso and now I’m thinking about canceling my order.

That’s my thought from the photo as well. Load lifters are supposed to do just that… lift the load off the shoulders. To do this they need to be above the shoulders. 15* is my minimum, and 30* – 40* is ideal. I have a 21.5″ torso measurement. While I agree that pulling the pack closer to the back is part of the load lifters role, releasing pressure on the shoulders from the shoulder straps are at least 50% of their mission. This pack would not work for me.

[Logan K]

@ Philip: Fair point. I was just focused on the head clearance issue that I have had with my other SO pack being so tall for my torso/neck height. Admittedly, this is not much of a problem in Florida, but it is an issue for me on steep ascents. I agree with the interpretation that the load lifters are not being utilized in this photo for the purpose of “load lifting”, but maybe the pack isn’t fully loaded (?), and the load lifters come into play when it is (?). If so, does that change the ride and head clearance of the pack? Could the frame be bent slightly away from the wearer to get the best of both worlds?

I have read some comparisons or mentions of comparison between the Flight and the HMG and some of the others in this “lightweight, framed category”, and for me functional load lifters are one of the major difference makers (vs HMG with none, for example).  I don’t see pics of people wearing HMG packs with the top of the pack bag close to their heads, but I also don’t get how the pack weight doesn’t wear out even the fittest shoulders eventually or give the wearer the “being pulled backwards” feeling.

Still more to process for me!

Logan

 

[Jon Solomon]

What is the purpose of load lifting?

It’s to keep the weight of the pack from pulling backwards and it does that by pulling the load in closer to the shoulders. That produces a feeling of lift, but how much real lift is there?

The load lifter straps, if that’s what you wanna call them, are completely functional on the Flight and do play a really noticeable and important role in the way the pack carries.

[Brad Rogers]

The prototype pack I carried last summer had a 22″ frame per Kevin and I am a 21″ torso.  As you can see the load lifters were not at the optimal 45* angle and were closer to 90*.  I have a rather long torso (and short legs) so the larger 24″ frame might have given me a better angle with the load lifters, but I can say that the pack carried really well.

Getting load lifters at a 45* angle is hard on smaller volume packs as they generally aren’t tall enough.  If you do make a smaller volume pack taller and narrower, you can’t reach the water bottle pockets, so there is a no win situation here, especially for us tall torso folks.  The load lifters on my Unaweep 4800 are at a 45* angle, but it’s a bigger (volume) pack.  I have had a HMG Porter 4400 and a Z-Packs Arc Haul and the Flight carries better than either of them.

[kevin timm]

I have a 20 inch torso. Wearing the 24 frame and centered on my illiacs, I get fine lift at 30 lbs and above. For me, it operates very similar to a 25 or 26 frame on the unaweep. I would also hesitate to judge one photo too much. On long days, I change how it carries throughout the day. Sometimes, I use it loose, sometimes it is mostly on the the shoulders, sometimes it is off the shoulders.

Kevin

[Murali C]

@Logan – I have used HMG packs – the idea is that the shoulder strap attachment point is right at the shoulder level and the straps are parallel to your shoulders unlike other backpacks where the shoulder strap attachment point is lower than the shoulder and the straps form a upside U on the shoulder. Also no pressure is applied on shoulders if the pack doesn’t slip. Pressure on shoulders in my opinion is because of insufficient torso length and pack slipping due to sweaty clothes. Also, HMG stays bend towards shoulders at the shoulder attachment point – so that bag is pushed inwards towards shoulder.

I have had several packs with load lifters – Sierra Designs flex capacitor, Zpacks Arc Blast, Seek Outside Divide – tried the SO Flight as well.

Packs that are trampoline style – like Osprey packs, Zpacks Arc* and to a certain extent Flight and packs with no torso adjustment (Or insufficient torso length and no adjustable torso) tend to pull the top end backwards. Here having load “adjustment” straps to pull the load closer to back/shoulder top helps get a better fit.

Having had packs with load lifters (and adjustable torso) and packs without (HMG, frameless packs), I don’t see any difference in carry capabilities due to load lifters. Proper torso length and frame are more important.

Google pictures of folks wearing your favourite backpack and you will find load lifters at all angles just like pictures here of Flight. Not many will have 45 degree or whatever.

Also if hipbelt is great in the backpack and the backpack doesn’t slip due to its awesome belt, then why have load lifters if you have adjusted the shoulder straps to make sure it is not applying any pressure on shoulders? Meaning if the backpack is slipping, then load lifter is not going to help you keep the weight off the shoulder.

IMHO, load lifters and sternum straps are unnecessary if you get a properly fitted pack – good torso length.

[James Marco]

Murali C, I agree 100%. IFF you have a good hip/waist belt you never need to worry about your shoulders. Loadlifters only let you fiddle with were the weight sits on your shoulders. It actually increases the load expenditure by sending carried load through your shoulders, backbone/torso, hips and various joints along the way as you twist for each step. In practice a light pull on the shoulders (like 5-7 pounds) lets you know what the pack is doing: riding up, riding down, slipping sideways, etc…

As far as a sternum strap, mine is a very light pressure, as in none. it’s only function is to keep the shoulder straps lined up on my shoulders. But, for a typical summer load out of less than 25 pounds for a couple weeks, it takes very little pack, too.

[Brad Rogers]

As for a sternum strap, I only find them useful off trail and scrambling where I want to keep the pack locked in and steady.  On trails I rarely use them on any pack I own.

[Author]

Posts