Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus Backpack REVIEW

This topic is empty.

Viewing 24 posts - 26 through 49 (of 49 total)

← 1 2

Author

Posts
Sep 16, 2007 at 4:48 pm #1402395

twig .
BPL Member

@bretthartwig
Locale: Australia

"(the sternum strap pocket and camera case are my additions)."

Sep 17, 2007 at 10:07 am #1402496

Brian Lewis
Member

@brianle
Locale: Pacific NW

"… does anyone know if the waist belt pocket is included with the pack or was that added on?"

My wife has the 2006 model, I have the 2007 model and neither came with waist belt pockets of any kind.

To be clear, I'm talking about a pocket designed to easily stow various gear and access same while wearing the pack. The pack does come with velcro sealed "pockets" that allow you to either insert the included foam for both shoulder straps and waist belt, or some people use other gear (small articles of clothing) in there as padding. IMO it's too much of a PITA to try to put anything but the stock foam padding in those locations — so while this could conceiveably be considered a "pocket", don't expect that you could access it while wearing the pack, and it would take the right size of item inserted and adjusted just right to work.

Sep 17, 2007 at 3:42 pm #1402561

Lance Parrish
Member

@lancejparrish
Locale: Southeast US

Let me start by saying I have one of the first Mariposa Plus packs and I'm going to have to agree with the consensus about the need for some kind of belt pocket. If nothing else, I would like it for my Aqua Mira and a snack bar. I've taken to clipping small ditty bags to the belt on either side for this purpose. Another concern that I have is that if I put a pad any longer than a TRUE torso length pad – Z lite included – the pack rides too far away from my back throwing off my entire center of gravity. I like ultralite as much as the next guy, but I've taken to putting a two segment section of z-lite in the pad holder for padding and then dropping a rolled thinlite pad in the pack for my actual sleep pad. I'm not entirely convinced that this is a great method as it seems somewhat redundant, but I try to make up for that by using my pack as additional padding. In doing so, I have almost a full length sleep pad. On this note, if anyone has any suggestions for this, I'm all ears. I also found that my pack had a y-strap that was far too long if not lashing a bear canister to the top. After speaking with Grant on the issue, he informed me that they had a run with this problem, but they have since fixed it. He immediately offered to fix it for absolutely no charge. Grant is an amazing guy. I'm glad to see that there are still people like him kicking around. All things considered, get the pack. It's still one of my favorites.

Sep 17, 2007 at 3:50 pm #1402563

Lance Parrish
Member

@lancejparrish
Locale: Southeast US

I suppose I should have read all the posts before commenting, but the map/sundries pocket listed is NOT internal. It is the small pocket above the slanted water bottle pocket on the pack's right side. The only internal pocket is for the hydration system, though in truth I find that this is a convenient place to put my map where it is less likely to be ruined when I'm on a trail and if I'm in a place where I'm less inclined to consult the map every few minutes. Okay, enough from me.

Sep 18, 2007 at 6:43 am #1402619

Will Rietveld
BPL Member

@williwabbit
Locale: Southwest Colorado

As several of you point out, we can only conclude that the "Small map/permit/sundries pocket (right side)" must be the upper mesh pocket. For me, that's confusing, because I expected it to be a security pocket, not just one of the outside mesh pockets. If GG is simply referring to the upper miesh pocket, then my point still stands, I want an internal zippered security pocket for my truck key and other things I don't want to lose. The SMD Comet pack (review to be published soon) has one and its very useful.

As mentioned in the photo caption and by other posters, the hipbelt case and sternum strap pockets in the photos are my own additions to carry my camera, map, water treatment, and other things I want to access without removing the pack.

Overall, the GG Mariposa is one of the best UL packs available. We like to nitpick in our quest for the perfect pack, and most progressive manufacturers (like GG) are paying attention and do their best to give it to us.

Best, Will.

Sep 18, 2007 at 11:22 pm #1402713

eric levine
Member

@ericl
Locale: Northern Colorado

Certainly there are flat carbon stays.

My Mountainsmith 4000 (circa ~1996) has them, one of the very first full sized truly light weight packs. My old Mountainsmith 2000 has an interesting feature as well: the pack when full, forms an S curve, which keeps the pack off most of the back and allows full ventilation.

That said, my G5 and G4 packs are the ones I use almost exclusively. The G5 for 3-season (7,5-9 pounds base)and the G4 for a backup/guest pack, or in winter (14-16 pounds base).

Sep 19, 2007 at 11:33 pm #1402862

Miguel Arboleda
BPL Member

@butuki
Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan

I was just wondering, as I read the posts here, if it would not be possible to design the carbon fiber stays so that there are three carbon fiber sections joined by two bendable, elongated aluminum ferrules. That way you have the lightness of the carbon fiber and the piability of the aluminum, without adding a significant amount of weight. Just a thought.

Sep 21, 2007 at 1:59 pm #1403035

Jeff Sharp
Member

@tsjeffery
Locale: Blue Ridge

Will and Sheldon, you guys are correct. The "Small map/permit/sundries pocket (right side)" is the upper mesh pocket on the right side of the OUTSIDE of the pack. This feature is included on all of the Mariposa-series packs, including the Plus and the Mini. It's also listed as a feature on all of the web pages for these packs. It's not anything new or unique for the Plus.

With that being said, Grant and I have discussed the possibility (read: we're still contemplating it so don't post that it will be on the next generation of packs please) of adding a small, zippered internal pocket just as you have described, Will. We've both been wanting something where you could securely store small necessities with easy access to them. We were thinking of including it on this last run of packs but it didn't make the cut because we haven't even designed it yet. It's still a "possibility" at this point for future runs of the Mariposa-series packs to include this pocket. Stay tuned….

Regarding Waist Belt Pockets I'll say this one more time. ;-) We do not sell or include Waist Belt Pockets with any of our packs at this time. The velcro opening in the shoulder straps and waist belts are for padding only. We will be coming out with Waist Belt Pockets and Shoulder Strap Pockets in the very near future. These will be standalone pockets that can be used with pretty much any backpack on the market. With that in mind, we most likely will be selling these as individual items and not including them with the packs. You will be able to purchase them as a separate item. I hope this clears up any confusion regarding pockets but I know there will be other posters who do not take the time to read prior posts. Oh well…

Miguel, that sounds like an interesting idea for a stay. My first thought is that it would be costly to design and produce, since you're combining two very different substances, but we might take a look at some variation of that. If Grant and I were machinists and had a machine shop at our disposal the cost wouldn't be as much of an impedance. But on the other hand we like to "keep it simple" in our design and production in order to "keep it light" and "keep it affordable".

Jeff

Sep 21, 2007 at 6:55 pm #1403067

Roger Caffin
BPL Member

@rcaffin
Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

Hi Jeff

> Grant and I have discussed the possibility of adding a small, zippered internal pocket
I make my own UL packs, and I include a small flat zippered pocket like this on the inside – just large enough to hold a passport, credit cards and a car key (not a key ring). I think the logic is obvious?

> that sounds like an interesting idea for a stay. My first thought is that it would be costly to design and produce,
I make such connectors for carbon fibre tent poles for the UL tents I make. Yes, they are messy (expensive) to make unless you have exactly the right materials. Personally, I would not bother. High tensile aluminium is about right.

Cheers

Sep 25, 2007 at 6:31 pm #1403598

David Peterson
Member

@thegeoguy
Locale: Sonoma County, CA

I have played around with aluminum stays (1/2 inch 6061) and also weighed the 3/8-inch stays from my McHale pack (7000-series aluminum). In general, a 24-inch long stay of this general width runs about 2 ounces. If you were to replace the 0.9 ounce carbon fiber stays with a couple of aluminum ones, I'd guess the net effect would be about 3 or 4 ounces added to the pack.

Personally, if I ever buy a Mariposa, I will definitely try this out…

Oct 18, 2007 at 1:44 am #1405896

Miguel Arboleda
BPL Member

@butuki
Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan

I am in the midst of clearing out my gear closet big time, getting rid of everything I don't need and trying to get my everyday life to be as ultralight as my backpack has become. I am trying to whittle down the packs that I have, too, so that I have one or two that do most of what I need. I do have a GoLite Jam2, but so far I'm just not happy with it. The straps are too thin and tend to roll, the hip belts tend to make the pack pull away from the back, the top securing strap is too short and won't cinch down when the pack isn't completely full, and the side pockets are way too shallow to porperly hold a platy bottle. Otherwise it would be a perfect size for most of what I do.

I therefore want to buy either the Mariposa, the Mariposa Plus, or the Miniposa. The Mariposa would probably be the right pack for me, except that I want to use the pack occasionally for international travel and in the craggier areas of the mountains, so that perhaps a more robest material is called for. I also like the removeable hipbelt of the Mariposa Plus. However, after using the G4 for many years and always finding it WAY too big, I wonder if the Miniposa might be better suited to the less bulky and smaller weights I carry now. I'm not worried about the straight carbon fiber stays because if I need stays I will replace the original ones with the aluminum stays from my Artic Pack. I really like the robust material of the Jam2, so the Plus might be a better choice. Most of my walks during the year are from 2 to 5 days long, with two or three trips of a week to two weeks or longer. I'd like a pack that can adapt well to all these kinds of trips.

Any opinions about what might be best to use? It's hard to tell sight unseen.

Oct 19, 2007 at 7:42 am #1406005

Miguel Arboleda
BPL Member

@butuki
Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan

Any opinions?

Oct 19, 2007 at 8:04 am #1406006

Sven Klingemann
Spectator

@svenklingemann

Hey,
I think that the Mariposa Plus is the best option for 3+ days or 1-2 days during winter time. Based on my experience the Mariposa Plus is a bit too big for 1-2 days when the weather is warmer and less clothing is needed. Overall I would go for the Mariposa plus though if you need to settle for one single bag.
S.

Oct 19, 2007 at 2:02 pm #1406046

carlos fernandez rivas
BPL Member

@pitagorin
Locale: Galicia -Spain

Hey Miguel I have the golite jam2 and the original mariposa and I understand your doubts.

In my personal opinion (and with my terrible grammar) I prefer the mariposa over the golite for one single reason I believe that the most important feature in a pack is the ability to carry as much weight as possible on our hips and the mariposa is one of the lightest packs with a useful hipbelt and the carbon fiber stays. This point is important because I read frecuently that with lighter loads, stays and belts are less useful ¿?

I never been capable to understand this because I used to carry a sub 3.5 kg (quite light i think?) base weight sometimes less ..(between 7.5 and 6 lb) and yes, you can carry this load witouth hipbelt …….but…. what happens when you add two liters of water and 2/3 kg of food ? (my typical load in a three days walk)…….3.5+2+2,5=8Kg (17.64 lb) and with this load .. stays and hipbelt are a good option.

While is not perfect I can carry quite heavy loads with confort, and the 2007 model improves some aspects over my pack.

For general use (one or two days) I find this pack too big (I prefer the golite size) for that reason Im tempted to buy the miniposa (im resisting the temptation until now, arf!) for that reason fi you are happy with the golite size the miniposa must be my recommendation.

Well that´s not exactly true, why? Because you write that you want the pack for ocasional international travel and crag areas…………..Meeec ….. we have a little problem here, I can´t recommend the mariposa for travelling and craggier areas …….because i tried both uses and unfortunately i find the pack too delicate.
The spinaker cloth is not designed for this abuse.

When I travel by plane I used to carry the pack empty as hand luggage or in a duffle bag, (as in the past TMB where I carry a tent remember ;-)

And in craggier areas i caused some holes in the pack with minimun friction with rocks. For that reason I use my Jam 2 in craggier areas. If you pretend to use the pack for travelling and cragging you must buy the mariposa plus (and I´m not sure if the stronger fabric will be adequate enought for that use) but as i told before I find it too big for short trips …

¡sh..it! nothing is perfect. :-(

My conclusion is…………….. that the winner is ……………….

¡the miniposa plus! …………………But unfortunately is not in production ……. :-(

but if you have one artic pack (use it in long walks) and a jam 2 (use it in craggier areas) buy the miniposa ……..try it ….. and if you are happy with …. plan to buy a mariposa plus next

Anyway …………..remember one thing ………..Its REALLY difficult to find the perfect pack …

I tried dozens ..nowadays i use one berghaus cyclops lite, one crux ak 57, one mariposa,one golite jam2, one marmot eiger 35, one GG wishper (with belt, of course) and I would like to buy more (artic pack, miniposa, cilo, mchale……) all excellent packs but I still dream with a mixture of all ………… ;-)

Oct 19, 2007 at 2:15 pm #1406050

D G
Spectator

@dang
Locale: Pacific Northwet

I know it's not a Mariposa/Miniposa but how about the ULA conduit?

It's about the same size as the Jam2 with the same durable fabric. Side pockets are nice and the shoulder straps are really excellent.

Oct 21, 2007 at 5:05 pm #1406198

Miguel Arboleda
BPL Member

@butuki
Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Carlos… yet it IS difficult to find the perfect pack, but I'm also beginning to feel pack overload with too many things. The more gear I collecct the more difficult it becomes to THINK about going light and keeping things simple. And that I guess means the pack itself must be simple.

Your suggestions have helped me to make a better decision. I'd consider the Conduit but it's not possible to order it at the moment. Besides the GG seems to fit a little better, from all the photos I've seen.

Mar 7, 2008 at 8:58 pm #1423458

Greg Mihalik
Spectator

@greg23
Locale: Colorado

Nathan,
Way back in September you said –

"I made stays for my miniposa from #1916 easton aluminum arrow shafts. They bend easily with a little heat from a plumber's torch, and the little rounded ends that came in the carbon stays even fit back in the ends. They only weigh 0.4 oz each, and work pretty well."

Do they roll or stay put?
Have they taken a fair amount of abuse?
Did you find anything better?

I think curved stays are the way to go, and if these are still working for you I'll follow suit.

Got any follow-up comments?

Thanks.

Mar 8, 2008 at 6:15 am #1423474

Nathan V
BPL Member

@junk
Locale: The Great Lake State

Greg, In response to your questions,

1- Yes, they can roll, but usually only when you are packing your gear. If I am careful to make sure they don't spin in the tube while packing, then once you put the pack on they can't spin, because of the fitted shape against your back.

2- They have worked well for me so far. Haven't bent or broken, with about 18 lbs. which is about the max I've carried in it.

3- I've heard GG is working on some curved stays that are connected to each other, so they can't roll. You could try emailing them about those.

I plan on sticking with my homemade stays again this year.

Mar 8, 2008 at 6:52 am #1423478

Greg Mihalik
Spectator

@greg23
Locale: Colorado

Nathan,
Thanks for the follow-up. Nothing like field testing to get it right. I'll give it a try, perhaps with a drilled-thru cross-connector

I did email GG and although they are working on the details, they won't be making any changes for the coming year. However, Grant did assure me that anything they come up with will fit prior models as well as the new models.

May 26, 2008 at 5:16 am #1434950

James D Buch
BPL Member

@rocketman
Locale: Midwest

================== QUOTE ============================

Even if the carbon fiber stays were bendable, I really doubt they can maintain the shape of the pack's back — given how thin they are. More likely, the two thin tubes will simply twist sideways… giving essentially zero effect.

A pair of bendable stays would need to be flat — and also wide and strong enough to force the pack's back to conform to the shape of the stays when everything is cinched tight. I think that will be adding a lot of weight to the pack.

If one wants a real frame to add some form and rigidity to the pack — but not 100% straight up — then a partial HDPE framesheet plus peripheral fiberglass hoops used by some pack makers may be a better answer then slipping in two metal stays in the middle. Again, just thinking out loud.

================== END QUOTE =======================

Bendable flat aluminum stays could be lightweighted by machining holes into the middle of them. This is the standard traditional aircraft approach to lightweighting aluminum, so it has a good track record – when done intelligently.

More expensive would be to machine or custom extrude/hotroll the aluminum bar to resemble an "I" beam with a thin web and thickend edges. The thin web would lie parallel to the back. This is use of an "I" beam in the transverse direction (at 90 degrees to the normal)and while it provides stiffness at less weight than a flat bar, it isn't particularly structurally efficient.

Still, more thinking might lead to an improved solution.

There are probably inexpensive bending fixtures that one can make at home, with a little thought.

Jun 16, 2008 at 9:39 am #1438578

wax wax
Member

@wax

Thanks for the tip on the aluminum stays. I just made mine and it does improve the comfort of the pack. About the Mariposa (or Mariposa Plus), I had a question about the capacity of the main pack body.

When measuring the pack (without the extension collar), I get the following numbers:

Height: 20.5"
Width: 10.5"
Depth: 6.5"

This gives ma a capacity of 1400 c.i. If I add the extension collar (13" max), the capacity reaches 2290 c.i.

I know that my model is a "small" and that silnylon does stretch a little bit but the theoretical number I'm getting is quite below the official number of 3700 c.i.

I did ask Grant at Gossamer Gear about this and he said that the pack's capacity should not be computed theoretically but in a practical way (by filling it with packing peanuts for example and then measuring the amount filled). But I'm not really convinced by his reasoning.

Has anybody measured the real volume of a Mariposa pack ? I'm just curious about this discrepancy but I must also add that I am very happy with this pack. The weight / comfort is really amazing.

Thanks.

w.

Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55 am #1438600

Jim Colten
BPL Member

@jcolten
Locale: MN

Wax,

This link at McHale Packs has an explanation why HeightxWidthxDepth is not a particularily accurate estimate of pack volume. The "Do this fun experiment:" section at the end is a succinct summary.

Jun 16, 2008 at 2:15 pm #1438615

wax wax
Member

@wax

Thanks a lot Jim ! I did the experiment and it's very interesting. Now I understand my mistake about the way I computed the capacity …as well as the way I packed my bag ! For the moment this isn't a big issue since I don't need a lot of volume but it's interesting to know that by putting my half Z-Rest outside of the bag, I will gain much more than the volume of that half Z-Rest.

w.

Sep 11, 2009 at 7:25 am #1526845

Keith Selbo
Spectator

@herman666
Locale: Northern Virginia

You can add the Bearikade Expedition to canisters that will fit inside this pack. It's the largest canister I know of.

I agree with the commenter who said the sternum strap is too long. I'm thin and I needed to shorten it so I could properly cinch the shoulder straps. Once it was tight enough, the buckle and strap dug into my chest which made me think the strap could be wider too. For now, I put a piece of half inch thick, 3 inch wide closed cell foam under it.

I prefer a waist pack to pockets on the straps. There are things I want to carry when I've doffed the pack.
Author

Posts