Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Choosing and Using a Frameless Pack

Much has changed since our last Frameless Backpack Review Summary published back in 2004 and our Superultralight Backpacks Review Summary published in 2006. Although the fundamentals remain the same, the number, diversity, and features available in frameless backpacks have greatly expanded. Our 2004 article contained just seven packs, and our 2006 article contained five packs. Today we have lots of choices, so it's entirely possible to find exactly the pack you want in terms of fabric, sizing, volume, and features. The challenges are to determine exactly what you want and to find it.

A lightweight frameless backpack is a core component of a lightweight backpacking kit, whether you choose to travel superultralight (SUL, base weight less than 5 pounds/2.3 kg), ultralight (UL, base weight less than 10 pounds/4.5 kg), or lightweight (LW, base weight less than 20 pounds/9.1 kg). The base weight is everything but consumables (food, water, and fuel). Pack total weight with consumables for SUL backpacking should normally be less than 12 pounds (5.4 kg), less than 20 pounds (9.1 kg) for UL backpacking, and less than 30 pounds (13.6 kg) for LW backpacking. Stronger people can carry more, but most people prefer less. It's best to keep weight under these limits if you expect to comfortably carry a frameless backpack. The guiding mantra is "less is better."

To carry a light load, all you need is a light pack, so a frameless backpack is the pack of choice for backpackers who've gone lightweight. Frameless backpacks have become very sophisticated and do their job well. However there is a great diversity of users, backpacking conditions, and specific needs and preferences. To accommodate such a diversity, manufacturers offer frameless backpacks with a wide range of volumes, weights, features, and load hauling capability. To cover the range of packs and uses, we divide the topic into six articles as follows:

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Choosing and Using a Frameless Backpack (this article) We discuss the fundamentals of selecting and properly using a frameless backpack, and provide specifications for all packs included.

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 2A – Technical Evaluation – Measurement of Pack Volume and Volume Reduction Capability Reports our measurements of actual pack volume and the extent that pack volume can be reduced to accommodate smaller loads.

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 2B – Technical Evaluation – Measurement of Pack Load Carrying Capacity Reports our pack torso collapse measurements using different pack loads to determine the comfortable load carrying capacity.

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 3 – Packs for Ultralight Backpacking (coming soon) We provide specifications for midsize frameless backpacks popular for ultralight backpacking, rate them according to relevant criteria, and identify the standouts for different situations and needs.

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 4 – Packs for Lightweight Backpacking and Load Hauling (coming soon) We provide specifications for larger volume frameless backpacks popular for lightweight backpacking, rate them according to relevant criteria, and identify the standouts for different situations and needs.

ARTICLE OUTLINE

Overview - Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011
Introduction to Part 1: Choosing and Using a Frameless Pack
Creating a "Virtual Frame"
Pack Compression/Volume Reduction
Removable Stays
Pack Volume
Proper Fit
Fabric Choices
Which Features?
Proper Packing
What Really Matters
Selection Criteria
Specifications
Specifications Discussion
Preview to Parts 2, 3, and 4

# WORDS: 8730
# PHOTOS: 13

--- End of free preview ---

Member Exclusive

A Premium or Unlimited Membership is required to view the rest of this article.

Membership Login

This topic has 54 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by James Marco.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 55 total)

1 2 3 →

Author

Posts
May 31, 2011 at 1:41 pm #1274703

Addie Bedford
BPL Member

@addiebedford
Locale: Montana

Companion forum thread to:

Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Choosing and Using a Frameless Pack

May 31, 2011 at 2:13 pm #1743256

Michael L
BPL Member

@mpl_35
Locale: NoCo

I like state of the market reports.

May 31, 2011 at 4:47 pm #1743329

Jerry Adams
BPL Member

@retiredjerry
Locale: Oregon and Washington

I'm more into MYOG, but you have good info about fabric, packing, fit,…

For example, my pack usually doesn't extend much above the shoulder attachment but I think it would be better if it was a little smaller diameter and extended a few inches higher, like you said, thanks.

May 31, 2011 at 6:20 pm #1743372

Dale Wambaugh
BPL Member

@dwambaugh
Locale: Pacific Northwest

"Think of features in terms of weight and functionality, not art."

I disagree! There's no excuse for functional design that isn't artful– that is what craftsmanship is all about. A well designed and manufactured pack can have the same appeal as any functional object. In fact, I'll bet that those packs that are functional failures probably look the part in use.

May 31, 2011 at 9:48 pm #1743457

Jeremy Platt
BPL Member

@jeremy089786
Locale: Sydney

Thanks a bunch for this, really helpful tips!

Jun 1, 2011 at 9:46 am #1743578

George Matthews
BPL Member

@gmatthews

Thanks for taking on this SOTM 2011. Excellent start and I'm looking forward to the upcoming series.

Jun 1, 2011 at 9:57 am #1743584

Jeremy G
BPL Member

@gustafsj
Locale: Minnesota

Will,

The HMG Pack had previously posted it's volume incorrectly on its website and has updated it in the last couple weeks. It is now posted as 2400 for the main compartment plus 600 for the outside pockets for a total of 3000.

Thanks for all your work!

Jun 1, 2011 at 10:27 am #1743594

Francis DeRoos
BPL Member

@fderooscomcast-net
Locale: Mid Atlantic

Great article and I'm really looking forward to the next few weeks. Curious why the only ULA pack included was the CDT? What about the Ohm and Circuit? Both seem to meet all the criteria and they are often discussed on the forums so an indepth look into these packs would be a great interest to many. Not to nitpick, just curious.

Thanks for all this work.

Jun 1, 2011 at 10:37 am #1743595

David Ure
Member

@familyguy

The Ohm and Circuit were not included because they are not considered frameless:

"The purpose of the stays is to increase pack stiffness; they do not create an internal frame backpack because the stays are not solidly anchored to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight to the hips."

The frames they use are anchored to the hipbelt.

What is interesting about Will's perspective on this is that my Mchale LBP34 has stayes that are not connected to the hipbelt. Does this make it frameless? ;)

Jun 1, 2011 at 11:15 am #1743607

Nathan Lare
BPL Member

@hikingllama

Thanks for the good information. Has there been a published schedule for the remaining parts of the report? I am getting ready to order a new pack and was curious to see how they were rated.

Jun 1, 2011 at 11:43 am #1743614

Kyle Meyer
BPL Member

@kylemeyer
Locale: Portland, OR

I agree about the Ohm & Circuit—both have as much a removable frame as any of the Gossamer Gear or Six Moon Designs packs. The fact that these aren't even considered in the state of the market when they're so wildly popular is a pretty big oversight or pedantic miscategorization.

"The purpose of the stays is to increase pack stiffness; they do not create an internal frame backpack because the stays are not solidly anchored to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight to the hips."

This report doesn't include some packs with removable stays because those packs use those stays in a more efficient manner? I don't understand the dichotomy between frameless packs with removable stays that are used one way versus another, and think it's silly to exclude a pack like the Ohm because it makes use of a stay too efficiently.

Jun 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm #1743633

Michael L
BPL Member

@mpl_35
Locale: NoCo

The circuit was in the internal frame SoTM report. Do you want it in both? I think the Ohm was excluded from that one due to size? Or am I remebering wrong?

Jun 1, 2011 at 12:15 pm #1743637

David Ure
Member

@familyguy

@ Kyle – one has to draw the line somewhere or then the review becomes one of increasing cross over. If you want to read about the Circuit, as Michael indicates, read the SOTM on internal framed packs.

Given that I have the Wind Rider, I completely understand where Will is coming from. It is essentially a frameless pack with minimally stiff stays that provide some back support but no stiffness into the belt.

Jun 1, 2011 at 1:15 pm #1743650

Mary D
BPL Member

@hikinggranny
Locale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge

I'm also wondering why the very popular ULA Ohm was excluded from both this and the internal frame packs report! If my current pack (2005 version of the SMD Comet) should fall apart (no symptoms yet, fortunately!), the Ohm is the first pack I would look at as a possible replacement.

I realize that you have to draw the line somewhere, but considering how often the Ohm is recommended in this forum, I'm surprised that it wasn't reviewed in one or the other pack category!

Jun 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm #1743656

Kyle Meyer
BPL Member

@kylemeyer
Locale: Portland, OR

"Given that I have the Wind Rider, I completely understand where Will is coming from. It is essentially a frameless pack with minimally stiff stays that provide some back support but no stiffness into the belt."

Sounds like there's room for improvement in the design then!

Jun 1, 2011 at 2:54 pm #1743673

Thomas Trebisky
Spectator

@trebisky
Locale: Southern Arizona

I am baffled by this, and have been for a long time. The past few years I have been doing lightweight trips (a week long, starting at 32 pounds or so, but ending near 20 pounds) with a MLD exodus (which is a great pack). I never use the waist belt, nor do I want to with loads that are this light. Back when I was ignorant and carrying 50+ pounds, using the waist belt gave some relief (or enabled my entire body to suffer equally). Now that I am carrying nominal 25 pound loads I can whistle a tune and carry the pack all day without getting tangled up with a waist belt.

So, all I ask of my packing methodology is that I don't have jabby things jabbing me. I am not on some macho trip, just surprised that so many are enamored of waist belts, is this really so?

Jun 1, 2011 at 3:02 pm #1743675

Matthew Black
Spectator

@mtblack

I carried 17.4 lbs over the Memorial day weekend in a Swift without waist belt for about 10 hours and found it really comfortable. I got the pack specifically because it is so modular and it seems like it will work great for me. I am uncertain about 25 or more lbs in the pack but it was great below that and I felt much better without the belt.

Jun 1, 2011 at 3:05 pm #1743677

Gerald Weigl
Member

@overton
Locale: 3rd rock from the sun

I am missing the Terra Nova Ultra 20 pack here. Now that its available from backpackinglight, it should be included. Thanks!

Jun 1, 2011 at 3:23 pm #1743685

Mark Hudson
BPL Member

@vesteroid
Locale: Eastern Sierras

I agree, not having the ohm and circuit for whatever reason is simply subjective in your analysis of frame less or not. You show an aluminum "u" which seems to be exactly what is in my ohm regardless of how its anchored.

Jun 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm #1743687

David Passey
Member

@davidpassey
Locale: New York City

I vastly prefer a hipbelt, a wide thin hipbelt. I've resorted to MYOG to get exactly what I want.

For me, the hipbelt is not necessary, but it enhances the trip by making the carry that much better, far more than the offsetting 3-4oz drag associated with adding the belt. I don't cut weight unless it's neutral or enhances the overall experience.

Lighter on the shoulders, snug to the body when moving fast and hopping. All the benefits of a hipbelt applied to a 15 lb pack–a dream to carry.

Jun 1, 2011 at 3:48 pm #1743695

Casey Bowden
BPL Member

@clbowden
Locale: Berkeley Hills

+1

I eventually cut the hip belt off of my Gossamer Gear Mariposa since I never used it.

Jun 1, 2011 at 3:59 pm #1743698

Matthew Black
Spectator

@mtblack

It was Casey who prompted me to try a pack without the waist belt. Works great for me along with stuffing my sleeping bag directly into my pack liner rather than messing with a stuff sack, another Casey tip.

Jun 1, 2011 at 4:11 pm #1743703

Eric Blumensaadt
BPL Member

@danepacker
Locale: Mojave Desert

Disclaimer: I'm a confirmed internal stay user.

But… for frameless packs using a hipbelt to attempt to transfer some load I STILL say a CFC mattress cut in half transversely and rolled into two smaller but tight rolls is the way to get a true transfer of load to the hipbelt.

The two CFC rolls would have to have their own sewn-in tubes in the inside of the pack with heavy duty Velcro top flap closures (with a few inches of adjustment in the closures) to force the CFC rolled tubes to stay all the way down in the sewn-in tubes. This would give the necessary stiffness for load transfer.

Jun 1, 2011 at 6:56 pm #1743779

Jay Wilkerson
BPL Member

@creachen
Locale: East Bay

Great article and plenty of info..Perfect timing I am in the market/hunt for a new UL pack. SMD Swift or MLD Exodus???????

Cheers

Jun 1, 2011 at 7:02 pm #1743781

rubmybelly!
BPL Member

@sleeping
Locale: The Cascades

I'd get the Prophet before the Exodus, unless you want a bigger pack. You can get an awful lot of stuff in a Prophet!
Author

Posts