Lightweight Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011
Part 2B – Technical Evaluation – Measurement of Pack Load Carrying Capacity

I've used a rolled up sleeping pad inside a Granite Gear Virga as a frame. No real issues with just a sleeping bag, stove, food, and a rainjacket/UL down vest inside it. Side pockets are big.

Michael – Thanks for your interest in the Aquilo pack and thanks to Will and Janet for their hard work on this article. I have enjoyed reading their analysis of all the packs and the discussion of the ins-and-outs of frameless packs.

Elemental Horizons is a relatively new company, only about 4 years old, that produces lightweight packs, pack accessories, and paddle sports gear like mesh bags and duffles. We strive to produce extremely high quality light weight gear that is feature filled and highly functional. And we are dedicated to keeping our manufacturing in the USA. The Aquilo pack is our latest pack offering and, as Will noted, is designed for lightweight backpacking. We are working on a variety of new designs as well so keep checking in to see what else is rolling off the line. Let me know if you have any questions about anything.

Looking forward to reading the rest of the series.

I added a piece of Coroplast to the foam panel in the back of my GoLite Pinnacle, and it really seemed to help.

It has some flex.

include the empty weights because those never change, unlike water and food which gets lighter as times goes on

Does it really matter whether a pack qualifies as "frameless" or not? Why not simply take a group of backpacks above a certain volume (not summit packs, etc) and below a certain weight and compare them to one another? If a frameless pack can carry 15lbs. while still being comfortable, then it's advantage will show in the results. If a framed pack carries much more weight with mere ounces of penalty, that will show up as well. In fact, graphing packs with a weight/volume/comfort ratio might be an interesting comparison.

Instead of testing "frameless packs for ultralight backpacking" as one category, just test "packs for ultralight backpacking" and do the same for "lightweight", etc. making sure the categories meet or slightly overlap. Fewer packs would "fall through the cracks" in that case and readers would still be able to select frameless or framed packs based on their own needs. The upside would be that the reader would be better able to evaluate the merits between totally frameless, removable frame, and framed packs of certain weight and volume classes. I doubt backpackers care much whether their pack has a frame or not, but they care a great deal about whether it's comfortable in their required weight range.

I recognize that this and the other SOTMR's represent huge amounts of work, but I've noticed that articles often experience discoveries during their creation that don't get fully incorporated into their earlier work. It's a lot of time and effort, I know, but after finding that folded CCF pads can be better, at least in some situations, wouldn't it be extremely useful to the reader to see that option in the previous graphs? And after deciding that inflatable pads do better as cylinders probably because they are more inflated and "stiffened", why not load the pack with the deflated pad folded and then inflate the pad to provide a similar comparison? It's rather obvious that the pad will provide more support when inflated, so why compare apples to oranges?

My two cents. Forgive my oversight if I'm missing something important. My criticisms and suggestions are not meant to belittle the impressiveness of this excellent series of articles. The authors' hard work is appreciated.

x2

Great idea. Just throw em' all in there and let the chips fall where they may. (And don't forget the Ohm! ha)

And again, Will, Janet, Roger, et al, great report so far. I have enjoyed reading each segment and have learned allot along the way. BPL rocks.

I've said several times on this forum that designing a "frameless" pack with TWO vertical internal sleeping pad compartments may be the best way to go.

A CFC mattress, a Thermarest Ridgerest, say, cut into a top and bottom half with a means of re-attatching the halves via Velcro or toggles and loops would be "the mattress frame with a difference".

The two halves, rolled tightly and placed in vertical sleeves sewn inside the pack's back would give more vertical support than the same mattress merely folded. The fabric tubes insure the rolled pads would aleays give the same support and padding regardless of the pack's load size. These tubes would need a very secure top flap to keep the rolled pads from rising out of the tubes. It's sorta-kinda like the old Jensen Pack twin vertical tube concept.

> I added a piece of Coroplast to the foam panel in the back of my GoLite Pinnacle, and it really seemed to help.

+1 (at least for a season). I noticed with 32 lbs in my 2009 Pinnacle that the CCF backpad buckled just above the hipbelt, significantly reducing the torso length. I added the plastic after that trip and it helped tremendously.

Since that time, I've dropped my base weight a bit, which included removing the pad and plastic from the backpanel. I now use a NeoAir with a shortened CCF under it. I roll that CCF pad as they did in this test and it felt similar to the original pad and plastic with the same amount of weight (more food).

I find it odd that the authors seem to somewhat recommend using a folded vs rolled CCF for more support, yet say this is "not desirable when carrying a heavier load", which is when you would want the extra support. Is there a difference somehow in having it in an external pocket as the pictured Gorilla vs inside the pack??? I'd expect the COG displacement to be the same.

I've now bought a thinner 3/16 pad so I may try folding it since I don't expect it to provide as much support burrito-style as the 1/2 (or 7/16?) it will replace. Since it's thinner, it shouldn't displace the COG as much.

I'd agree, Michael. It just seemed odd the way they worded it. In my case, the thinner pad should not move the COG any further out if I use it folded vs the rolled thicker pad I have been using. The real question for me will be how easy is it to pack with a folded vs rolled pad? Stuffing everything inside the burrito is a piece of cake.

Speaking of folding is there a superior way of folding for pads that weren't already designed for that?