Sep 1, 2020 at 12:40 pm #3674230
I love the Flight belt in regards to comfort and the XL pockets, but if the ULA belt helped reduce some of the compression under load that Dave noticed; I’d definitely consider replacing it. If it doesn’t, then I’d stick with the Flight belt.Sep 1, 2020 at 12:45 pm #3674233
Mike, I just went back and read Dave C’s comments. Can’t that slack be fixed by making sure the belt is tucked up into the top edge of the junction of the lumbar pad and the pack bag? The ULA belt is a tighter fit than the Flight belt, BTW, but not sure if it’s tight enough to improve the situation. (Assuming I am understanding that situation, which I might not be.)Sep 1, 2020 at 12:53 pm #3674236
Dave, just saw your post over at P&B.
Curious about any other thoughts you might have about the Zoro.Sep 1, 2020 at 12:54 pm #3674238
Dave shortened the belt some as I was literally cinching it buckle to buckle, so part of the padded portion of the belt is now at the edge of the lumbar pad, which should help some (not to mention the ability to cinch up a little more).
I was thinking if the ULA belt was padded the entire way around, it might help even more????Sep 2, 2020 at 10:32 am #3674458
I think the way Nick did the hipbelt attachment on the Zoro makes total sense. Having the anchor point in the bottom seam, butting right up to the frame, eliminates flex and stretch in fabric and foam elements. Probably lighter than a lumbar pad arrangement, especially for something like the Flight frame which (unlike the Zoro) doesn’t require additional structural elements to maintain horizontal rigidity.Sep 2, 2020 at 10:43 am #3674462Ben KilbourneBPL Member
Dave, I’m way into the Zoro belt attachment for the same reason. It’s more like the Divide than the Flight really. I see they’re making some changes to the Zoro. Any idea what they have in the works?Sep 2, 2020 at 12:59 pm #3674475
Thank you, Dave. The folks at Rogue Panda have mentioned that hanging the belt that way allows for some freedom of pelvic motion. Do you agree?Sep 2, 2020 at 1:19 pm #3674479
I’ve heard a lot on both sides of that question: floating belts decoupling pack motion from walking motion, as well as people saying that the design and lack of lumbar pad creates a lack of stability and motion control (esp at heavy loads). I’ve never really experienced either extreme. I like the design because it doesn’t slip and doesn’t have to be cranked super tight to do so. Then when coupled with a good frame for the load I can loosen or tighten the shoulder straps to suit the terrain.Sep 2, 2020 at 2:28 pm #3674491Brian GoodeBPL Member
I was hoping the pack bag would attach to the belt maybe using small wings with grommets to attach on either side vs lumbar pad. I love how the Seekoutside belt attachment is in the larger packs.Sep 2, 2020 at 5:19 pm #3674511kevin timmBPL Member
@ktimmLocale: Colorado (SeekOutside)
I’ll chime in. Our larger packs see about a 70 percent and possibly higher lumbar pad use. Now, it is personal. We have people that do not use one, some people that go either way .. and many that use one or prefer it for usability.
For what is is worth, our intent with the Flight is not to replace the full adaptability and functionality of the Divide or similar. That platform, is great, BUT is one that is better for more advanced users that understand fit, and are open minded in their testing of what works best for them. The intent of the Flight was a pack that complemented it, was simple to use and carried very well in a variety of hiking / backpacking / scrambling uses.
Our advice to people in general, is that though we give it a 50 lb rating when properly fitted, that in general if you go over 35 often go with the big packs , however if you mainly are sub 30 and sometimes go above the 35 -40 range then the Flight is great and saves some weight. From the user feedback we have, it seems to be about 1/3 put the load rating in the 30 range , and about 2/3 put it in the 40-60 range.Sep 2, 2020 at 6:33 pm #3674531Brian GoodeBPL Member
Good info Kevin. For what it’s worth I still loved my original Evo and Unaweep packs and love love love using them every week!!Sep 2, 2020 at 7:33 pm #3674537
Dave, why does attaching the pack to the belt in that manner result in less belt slippage?Sep 4, 2020 at 8:26 am #3674685
Two reasons: The lack of a bulky lumbar pad means less foam and fabric to stretch, compress, and generally get weird. More significantly, having the frame separate from and ending below the belt makes the pull more purely down, rather than out.
The 70% stat Kevin cites above isn’t surprising, and more than anything really shows how entrenched the desire for a lumbar pad is. What I hear him say with respect to the Flight being easy to use is that it looks closer to something folks may have bought at REI in the past.Sep 5, 2020 at 5:47 pm #3674863
Thank you, DaveSep 5, 2020 at 6:07 pm #3674866
I wonder if a Zoro-type connection between the Flight hipbelt and the two gatekeeper strap loops at the bottom seam/base of frame would help at all?
Its intriguing since the loops are already in place and secured by the bottom seam. And they seem reasonably close in distance toward midline/spinal column akin to the Zoro distance from midline…Sep 5, 2020 at 6:48 pm #3674868
^ are you thinking something like this?Sep 5, 2020 at 6:56 pm #3674869
Yeah, that looks very interesting but maybe the Zoro hipbelt is stiffer than the Flight belt.
The thought crossed my mind when I realized that the bottom gatekeeper loops are at roughly the same spot as the base of the Zoro’s stays/straps. The loops are almost begging for a trial attempt at flexible attachment to the hipbelt.Sep 6, 2020 at 11:13 am #3674918Philip TschersichBPL Member
@philip-akLocale: Kodiak Alaska
Funny you should mention that…
A few weeks ago I experimented with some ‘Pull-the-Dot’ snaps to do a load transfer scheme like the bigger SO packs, or the Zoro. The Flight belt is too soft overall for my single point of contact to do much, especially since I put the snap near the top. The belt just deformed under the load. A reinforced/stitched-through interface like the Zoro would be needed. It is an interesting concept, though I’m not sure I will pursue it further. It’s just fun to tinker.Sep 6, 2020 at 11:35 am #3674921
Thanks for the pics and feedback Philip. Good stuff!
I also was pondering the benefits of mini-stays in a vertical sleeve on the back of the hipbelt, where the gatekeeper strap would attach to the belt… And yeah, fun to ponder and tinker for sure.Sep 6, 2020 at 11:55 am #3674923Philip TschersichBPL Member
@philip-akLocale: Kodiak Alaska
The real solution is to follow Kevin’s advice; use a Flight for lighter loads and use their other packs for bigger loads. Pretty simple.
And speaking of customizing, everyone needs to check out the SO custom pack builder tool. It’s really cool.Sep 6, 2020 at 1:52 pm #3674932Ben KilbourneBPL Member
I just put a small ULA hipbelt on my Flight and it’s now great. The ULA is stiffer so there’s little to no collapse, and the velcro matches. The small also fits my 33″ illiac crest measurement perfectly.Sep 26, 2020 at 5:53 pm #3677565
Anyone care to measure the width of the Flight One frame?Sep 26, 2020 at 6:14 pm #3677566
10.5″Sep 26, 2020 at 6:24 pm #3677568
Thanks Mike!Oct 4, 2020 at 8:51 am #3678402
well happy to report after a few tweaks with the frame and hip belt, my Flight is rocking it- ~ 25 lbs on the Wonderland Trail (got it done in four days) felt almost like not having a pack on :)
Rained really hard on day four and when we finally made it back to White River campground, everything in the bag was bone dry (I still use a dcf dry bag for my bag and clothing just in case)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.