Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report – Part 1C: Main Bag & Comfort

I pretty much echo David on his points. Especially in regards to stuff like hip belt pockets.

I absolutely despise carrying stuff in my pants pockets. Even regular day and around the office. So when hiking, chapstick, sunscreen, snacks, etc go into the hipbelt pockets and not my pants pockets.

A consideration in configuration of the main pack compartment is whether the user expects to be carrying a bear canister. I routinely hike in Yosemite where a canister is required so this was a major driver for me. When shopping for packs, I observed that some of the narrower packs made packing around a canister difficult.

My Osprey Exos 58 has the "flared-out bottom" which allows the canister to be stored horizontally, at the bottom of the pack (typical sleeping bag position) or vertically, mid-pack, atop the sleeping bag. I vary the configuration based on balancing my load, relative weight of food, water, cnaister and other items, etc. Sometimes, when in the vertical position I have to finagle the canister to avoid the volume and weight of my (dreaded!) hydration bladder. I do appreciate the flexibility which I did not observe in some packs of similar weight and volume.

I like 'boring, pallid' gear reviews.

So far, I don't think I've learned much at all about the State of the Market. But I know a great deal more about Roger Caffin's personality than I might have ever cared to know.

The question I have is why the large outpouring of complaints compared to anything a normal member were to submit? If any of us had written this, I'd be shocked to see the same reactions from people.

How about we have a clear, focused *discussion* rather than a rag-fest.

>OK, what should we discuss? I'd say there's not a lot, until part 2 comes out.

Anything is salient discussion, even why Person X likes or dislikes hydration bladders. But when post after post is littered with "this review is crap because…." or "your way is wrong because…." types of comments, it clogs things up. Quite useless, actually.

Why not step away from the sterility of "a dispassionate review" and embrace it as simply another angle of things? It really can help with looking at things differently in comparison with the basic bullet-pointed specs list.

Roger,

Good work.

I'm not picking a side because the passionate differing opinions do not apply to me, but research reports generate creative tension. Good for all have a bit of forum heat now and then.

Please don't get discouraged.

P.S.

I'm waiting for the invention of a device called an utter. It would recycle your real bladder output into your pack bladder. Then you'd really never have to stop hiking. I'm sure when it arrives you will review the Ultralight PissUtter.

"All this banging on Roger. How else would he review the packs if not from his own point of view, based on many years of backpacking experience. Would we prefer a reviewer with little experience?"

Nothing wrong with his experience and opinions, it just could have been written a lot less hostile. For instance, instead of;

“many American packs have extra pockets at the sides near the bottom or across the outside back of the pack. The American manufacturers seem to love to add these, but why they do so is not clear. Perhaps they are marketing frills, or maybe they have the idea that anything stuffed into an external pocket does not really count when working out the pack weight?”

It would have been adequate to just say that the author doesn’t like extra outside pockets (because where he hikes they get caught in scrub, etc…), but if this is a feature that you are looking for in a pack then consider many of the American models such as brand xxxxxxx

Or instead of;

"“Stuff put in the back pocket might be a bit safer, especially if the back pocket has a zip, but that position has a serious problem. Putting weight that far from your back moves the Centre of Gravity (CoG) away from your back, which is a pretty stupid thing to do. You want the CoG as close to your body as possible. That said, a simple back pocket can be very useful for storing flat things like sit mats (which are usually the last thing to get packed away) and map cases. But so often the extra pockets turned out to have very little useful volume once the main bag had been filled up, so the fancy design on many of them seem almost useless to me.”

Which again implies that most people who use this feature don’t know how to pack their bags, and that they are ‘stupid’ He could have just said which packs had back pockets, which had zippers etc…for those that like this feature, even though the author wouldn’t put anything too heavy in them due to issues with CoG.

It is possible to present an opinion without implying people are stupid, or silly, or just don't know how to pack their bags.

"“Finally, I tried keeping things in such pockets, but the pockets were so small I had to stop and very carefully open the pocket when I wanted something out of one – while being very careful not to lose anything else in that pocket. So I am left skeptical: it seems like another cost-adding marketing feature, and I just don't bother with them. Then there's the little pocket found on the Osprey Exos shoulder straps: I was told it's for holding your iPod or MP3 player. Phooey: Keep It Simple!”

Ummm, not all the packs tested had small pockets, and it would be sufficient to point out to readers which pack had larger hipbelt pockets, which got in the way of arm swing (without poles, which many readers use), which had small pockets, and which had a choice of pocket size, while pointing out the he does not see utility in these pockets, but providing the information for those who prefer hipbelt pockets. Hopefully we will get this useful information in part 2!

There's lots more in the article where the author, though very experienced at his way of doing things, comes across as insulting to people who have differing experiences or opinions. It's just unnecessary and inflammatory journalism and not very professional, again just IMHO.

I think many here have assumed a certain amount of like-mindedness, to the point of group cohesion, we're definitely not an UL conglomerate here. What good would it do any of us if we as BPL members were always being echoed back the same recreated ideas, techniques, methodology, gear lists, etc. with every article or report? Absolutely nothing. What would be the point? Reading Rogers thorough SOTMR only further confirms that: hiking, (S)UL hiking, backpacking, lightweight backpacking, bushwalking (insert label here if you care) is truly an individualist activity with no right or wrong way to do so, it's about the journey first and foremost, the means and tools in which we do so are only a footnote with a broad margin for interpretation and execution.

I too, like some have expressed, found some of the personal biases and musings expressed by Roger concerning hydration and pack design to be slightly off-putting, specifically his 'fashion' comments but then realized my own insecurities were to blame, not Rogers personal reflections. Why do I care that Roger doesn't like outside pockets for hydration? At the end of the day, I don't really and shouldn't, his opinions don't effect my decisions, it's his journey, not mine. I'm definitely enjoying the data and feedback shared in this report Roger, even though I haven't the slightest inkling of interest in acquiring a lightweight internal framed pack! Thanks for the investment you made in this series. Cheers, as you say.

@ Nick– HAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!

and really ought to happen at some point…..

"Why do I care that Roger doesn't like outside pockets for hydration? At the end of the day, I don't really and shouldn't, his opinions don't effect my decisions, it's his journey, not mine"

Ditto. It's not the experienced UL packers that I'm concerned about, as we all have worked out what works best for us by now. It's new people joining this site that are thinking about buying a light internal framed pack, and read this article thinking this is really SOTMR, when much of it is just a rant. I expected a more balanced and less opinionated approach for a SOTMR, not for my benefit, but for those who really don't yet know what they want in a pack.

"although from the amount flak dished out- a new person reading this article and the accompanying posts will definitely be getting a wide array of opinions :)"

Yup, good point :)