The upcoming BPL Absaroka Backpack.

Hmm, while there is something to be said for more durability and ability to carry heavier loads, isn't this sort of entering the realm of mainstream backpacking? And haven't so many people railed against this very philosophy that mainstream backpackers maintain? Or is the drift that afflicts companies like GoLite inevitable? Seems everyone is getting heavier these days.

Well, Ryan did say that there will be a version for the UL ounce-counters coming soon as well.

But spare a thought for those of us who want to do week-long trips in winter-time, possibly in the snow. The range of light-weight packs suitable for that is a bit limited. No, I am not looking for a scad of 'What about XXX?' comments, just a recognition that sometimes a silnylon stuff-sack with string for shoulder straps is not going to hack it.

'UL' has to be taken in context, and some conditions require more gear than others, just for survival. If I compare the gear I used to carry on week-long ski trips 10 years ago with what I carry today, I can see a huge reduction in weight. My 4.5 kg of tent has become <2 kg. My huge winter SB has become light quilts. My 3+ kg pack has become 0.8 kg. My 0.8 kg of winter stove has become 0.2 kg (and falling). And so it goes. But winter gear still weighs a lot more than summer gear.

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 01/21/2010 16:28:00 MST.

I'm not a gear expert, but I also was not blown away by the specs.

Seems like a close competitor would be the ULA Circuit with 47.5 liter bag capacity and ~12 liters of capacity in the pockets for approximately the same weight at 36 oz. The Circuit claims a lower weight carrying capacity though.

I agree with Roger. For a variety reasons, some of us need/want larger volume packs that have good support. However, I personally doubt the Absaroka pack will topple the Osprey Exos or LuxuryLite for my heavy loads.

Ditto Roger and Lynn. Also, props to BPL for getting their statement and vision of the pack out there.

Like most, I have more than one pack. One for SUL pursuits (Zpacks Z1) and one for everything else (GG VT) read: winter, carrying a tent, etc. The new BPL pack fits the latter. Stock alert requested.

Although this pack is probably not for me, I do see one major problem with it...


I cannot remember the name, nor can I pronounce it. Even after Ryan's phonetic spelling of the name.

Recommend that it be changed to something that is memorable and catchy. That will probably increase sales by 50% :)

"I cannot remember the name, nor can I pronounce it."

I've always thought that was pronounced Ab-sa-roe-kuh. :)

Sounds like an okay name to me, it's better than P1 or P2 There are some brands of packs that are confusingly named to me, like the Osprey lines. Or the Granite Gear Vapor Meridian Latitude Nimbus line.

Edited by Coldspring on 01/21/2010 18:20:18 MST.

You forgot Ozone on the end of that Granite Gear pack name!

I like the name "absaroka" but I have one question; will it be available in a more LNT, subdued color? I look forward to seeing more.

What is BPL's goal with the line of packs they are bringing out?

* Are they simply expanding their business?

* Are they bringing out something that they believe the rest of the industry has overlooked and/or will not bring out?

* Something else?

So far BPL has been independent of the gear manufacturers, and an objective (if sometimes opinionated) source of information. If they are now competing with other manufacturers, will there be issues such as objectivity of reviews of gear where there is competition?

-- Bob

Hopefully they just shorten it to 'Rocka That would be cool and easy. And I know the backcountry aint a fashion show but I wouldnt want to wear the bright green beartooth and the bright orange pack. Im not a fan of the fluorescent outdoor gear.

But spare a thought for those of us who want to do week-long trips in winter-time, possibly in the snow. The range of light-weight packs suitable for that is a bit limited. No, I am not looking for a scad of 'What about XXX?' comments, just a recognition that sometimes a silnylon stuff-sack with string for shoulder straps is not going to hack it.

Oh, I completely agree with you Roger! (and you Lynn, and others...). I do a lot of winter backpacking and my winter packs are always heavier and sturdier than my summer packs. I'm just having a hard time differentiating between packs that are already out there and what the Absaroka might offer that is different. After all, you have to market the thing and offer customers something unique. And that's not easy to do if your pack line is not yet established or even known.

On a different note, Ryan has in the past voiced great fondness for McHale packs and since the Absaroka is similar to McHale packs I've been wondering if there is a connection.

>>I cannot remember the name, nor can I pronounce it.

Well, it could be named "Popo Agie", after the Popo Agie Wilderness...

Might be a good pack for longer trips with heavy food loads.

Edited by jdw01776 on 01/21/2010 21:24:28 MST.

The hipbelt complex in particular is intriguing.

My only complaint, in the context of winter use, is that I see no way to carry skis.

I am hoping this pack carries as comfortably as the vapor trail and improves upon the vapor trail's shortcomings.

I like the look of the side pockets and hipbelt pockets as well as the closure system.

Here are some photos Ryan posted in addition to the ones in Miguel's link.

Edited by sdwhitey on 01/21/2010 22:37:40 MST.

Interesting. Very, actually.

I was told by some BPL Staff that 37oz was heavy for a backpack in the traditional sense (I disagreed). How do they feel about this 35oz prototype?

I can't tell by the pictures - what is the compression like?

Mmmmm. Interesting.

I add my voice to those calling for the packs to be available in more subdued and cryptic colours.

Edited by lushy on 01/21/2010 22:54:45 MST.

It's definitely not something that would make me want to give up my beloved SMD Comet. I have very pressure-sensitive shoulders and NEED load lifters! And my Comet, with the stays, weighs only 27 oz. and will carry up to 35 lbs. I'm just sorry that SMD dropped it, because their Starlight is a lot bigger than I need. I expect my Comet will be around for quite a few years more, though.

I'm not at all enamored of the bright orange, either. Aargh.

No problem with the name, but I grew up in Wyoming! I suppose they could have called it the Teton or the Beartooths, but what's wrong with the Absaroka? (Actually, the Beartooth Plateau is part of the Absarokas.) They could have called it the Popo Agie, which is really one that nobody can pronounce (it's something like poh-POH-zha). Or Twogwotee (TUH-guh-tee).

Edited by hikinggranny on 01/21/2010 23:29:40 MST.

Yeah, neon orange is not my thing.

That being said I like the idea of this pack. On my thru hike I had a 10 lb base weight + 6 lbs of water + 15 - 20 lbs of food for a total in the low 30s. I used a vapor trail but it struggled at the upper end of that weight. The only light weight competitor that can carry that weight comfortably that I know of is the nimbus ozone at 3 lbs. Significantly heavier than the roka.

On the down side, besides the color (a big negative), the compression seems minimal. Looks fine if you let your sleeping bag loft up fully, but no so good if you leave your shelter and bag in camp and go off for a day hike.

Wouldn't the bright orange colour help prevent you from getting shot in the back of the neck by hunters? Seems like a plus to me!

> will there be issues such as objectivity of reviews of gear

THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN OUR OBJECTIVITY!

Bear in mind that reviewers such as Will and myself are NOT the same as BPL. We are independent.

Cheers

"Wouldn't the bright orange colour help prevent you from getting shot in the back of the neck by hunters? Seems like a plus to me!"

Especially now that there's such lightweight guns, better to have something in bright colours.

Well, I think BPL is just smart with this pack. Its not aimed at the people reading this forum (or not yet!), but more at climbers and people who start lightweight backpacking. That are the folks who carry 40+ lb, so they need a lightweight yet good pack which carries that weight. They are enlarging their market, which is a smart business move. We gram counters are getting our BPL pack in 2011, which is just another 343 days away!

Looks like a pretty solid pack for those times when carrying less than 20lbs is just not in the cards. Good luck on the new venture BPL!

THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN OUR OBJECTIVITY!

Bear in mind that reviewers such as Will and myself are NOT the same as BPL. We are independent.

At one time BPL (Ryan, actually) vigorously defended a policy of not publishing reviews of "BPL gear" (to the displeasure of some premium members). Has that policy changed? (this member is hoping not)

I have a crazy thought, since BPL has made the investment in time, research and capital why don't we let the market determine wether it becomes a hit or miss!

Just two cents thrown in from CA. Lovin' the rain out here.

Go get dirty everyone and have a great weekend.

Bill

I have to say that I wasn't too excited yesterday, but my anticipation has grown over night. I suppose part of my disappointment was based on the unreasonable (and uneducated in terms of gear design)expectation that BPL would come out with some miracle pack; fully framed, 4000ci, compactable down to 2000ci w/o sacrficing structure, waterproof, capable of brief levitation during particulary hard climbs, convertible into a 35sqft bear-proof shelter, etc. All for about 16oz.

It's definitely intriguing as a winter pack. Right now, I can fit my winter gear into my GG Gorilla, which only has a 39 liter pack bag and 6 liters worth of pockets. That includes a 15 degree equivalent quilt combo and enough wearable insulation to take me down to zero or below. Give me another 6 liters of bag and 2-4 liters of pockets,(I love pockets) and I think I'd be set for just about all my winter camping needs for about 2lbs.

The modularity of the pack is really appealing. If the pack could get down into the 1.5lb range frameless for summer camping, it might just replace my Gorilla and reduce my pack collection to one, which would be awesome from a gear storage and lightweight living philosophy perspective.

And you can even count me in the minority that kind of likes the oragne color.

The big question will end up being what they put in place of "TBA" in the price column.

"but more at climbers"

From one climber to one who is not. No, this pack is not aimed at climbers.

As a non member, with an interest in the pack, it is poor marketing by BPL to limit the 'spin' about an upcoming product by making it viewable to only members via the link in the OP. My interest will naturally be guided elsewhere, to prototypes and packs I don't have to pay to see.
Watch Ron at MLD do it right about upcoming gear before it hits his shop.
fred

This looks interesting, I like the modularity idea. It would be great for someone who was gradually lightening up. The pack could haul 40 pounds of gear but if they get lighter the pack is still reasonably light. Not to get off topic but this is more the kind of pack I would have envisioned Golite turning out for the mass market.
I might wait for the new Artic Packs though. If I recall they were hauling up to 60 pounds in the Artic Dry Packs. I would kind of like that capability if I were dragging my (feature) family along on a trip.

While we're thinking about marketing what if BPL offered a nice discount for first time members buying this pack? Increase membership and sell packs. Through in a slick "How To" DVD that explains lightweight backpacking techniques in a way that your average weekend warrior can understand so people start really understanding how UL works.

Some housekeeping notes in response to the forums:

1. We don't review our own products. That's not going to change. Neither Roger nor Will nor anyone else is going to get to review this pack for BPL. It may end up in a comparison table showing specs like weight and volume somewhere, but beyond that, our policy still stands that we don't review our own gear.

2. The photos show the orange brighter than it really is. It's actually a pretty dirty, subdued orange. The color may still change, or two colors may be offered, or it may stay the same. Emphasis on "may" in all cases ;)

3. I'm not interested in building a pack for the masses, or the "public" or any other group other than the BPL community, so I'm not keen on marketing the pack's cache with "public leaks" or conducting this launch the way that MLD or GoLite or anyone else does it. The members pay the price to keep this site going and I'm not terribly apologetic about giving them first looks.

4. This pack design came in response to member's requests for features, that were in response to a prototype that I'd made last fall and featured in the "24 Hours" Hyalite video episode. So, this pack reflects a particular project with particular design objectives and is not intended to reflect a product that will appeal to all people for all things. HOWEVER of all of the packs that I have on the development map, this one will probably be the most VERSATILE and adaptable to multiple scenarios. You cannot carry 30 pounds in comfort with a frameless silnylon sack without a hip belt, but you CAN carry a pack like this with an SUL load and *gasp* guess what? Your "performance" on the trail will not be affected by the fact that you are carrying 1 or 2 extra pounds on your back! Did I say that?! :)

5. Modularity is an important component of this pack, for a number of reasons. First, you all have different body types, shapes, needs for padding, etc. Second, I am developing a smaller size for youth that will be targeted at Scout-aged kids (9-13+) and released a little later, and the modularity is needed to address their growth requirements.

Anyway, random thoughts. Good discussion on feedback as well, keep it coming.

Edited by ryan on 01/22/2010 10:31:25 MST.

>>Second, I am developing a smaller size for youth that will be targeted at Scout-aged kids

That is a great idea.

I'm a big fan of the adjustable kids pack idea. My little brother (11 years old) carries a SUL type load but sometimes he likes the extra comfort of his 3 pound Dana Designs pack more than a 1 pound frameless pack. I always felt like a pack with a frame and padding was much more beginner friendly.

I don't get the slant on the pocket tops. It seems like wasted material to me. Also, without adding any weight, I'd like to see a quick on the go stow for hiking poles like Osprey came out with. It looks really convenient, but I don't want to pay the Osprey weight penalty.

Ryan,

From the pics it looks like the sternum straps are adjusted by sliding up and down on some type of track. That is sick!!(good)

-Tim

Doesn't the golite ion have that adjustable sternum strap?

I've got used to having a big mesh pocket on the back of my packs. I couldn't see myself buying a pack for backpacking with that didn't have one.

"on the trail will not be affected by the fact that you are carrying 1 or 2 extra pounds on your back! Did I say that?! :)"

NICE! It had to be said Ryan.

Hi Keith,

I'm not privy to the design path of this pack, but assume the diagonal openings are to allow gear and supplies to be retrieved and replaced on the go. In my experience this small touch makes a big difference in my frustration index. The other thing I notice is there are no compression straps crossing over the pockets, another common design no-no. Could one stow poles there on the go? Hard to say without a real-world fit test but I agree it would be great if it proved possible.

The pockets' very size is encouraging.

Cheers,

Rick

""on the trail will not be affected by the fact that you are carrying 1 or 2 extra pounds on your back! Did I say that?! :)"

NICE! It had to be said Ryan."

That's it, I am selling my tarp.

"From one climber to one who is not. No, this pack is not aimed at climbers."

You clearly must be unable to pay 100% attention while reading. Click on the link in Miguel's post. Scroll to purpose. Read *very* carefully. Yes, right there it says climbing gear.

I like the colour, and would welcome it if it stays. Orange is a good colour! Making a model for kids is also a very good move (also business wise), growing the future generations to become lightweight backpackers is the way to go.

This is not a climbers pack - I am referring to what you said, not any marketing spin that someone else wrote.

Did I hear this from BPL????? "Your "performance" on the trail will not be affected by the fact that you are carrying 1 or 2 extra pounds on your back!"
GASP is BPL going to the dark side?!!!
Okay in all seriousness I agree. Actually thats one reason I like BPL most people here are level headed. Sures its a fun challenge to shave ounces but carring 15 pounds instead of 14 pounds probably won't change much of anything.
By the way I like the orange color.

OT: Must have misunderstood you then, David - sorry if it sounded harsh, it wasn't meant that way =)

Hi Hendrik - I did not mean, nor take any offence.

Cheers.

I can't resist providing a link to a previous thread. About 1/2 way down there is a discussion with Sam and Mike of BPL regarding the comment made that a 37oz pack is too heavy for backpacking. All in good fun, of course:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=22996&startat=20

Just finished reading the linked thread and I couldn't agree more with you David. Well put response regarding what is or isn't considered a "heavy" pack. Thanks for the link, good reading and input as usual.

So, is there going to be a thread titled 'Ryan Jordan has officially lost his mind' ? :>) I can't agree with him more of course.

"My only complaint, in the context of winter use, is that I see no way to carry skis."

David,

It looks like you could insert them in the side pockets and lash them together above the top of the pack. Possibly add a piece of lightweight bungee cord looped around the skis and attached to the frame on both sides where it is exposed at the shoulder strap attachments, if you needed a little extra security. Just a thought.

Good response by Dan McHale ; ).

Edited by jshann on 01/22/2010 18:09:43 MST.

"Good response by Dan McHale"

That is almost a given. Even in heated discussions Dan comes across as calm, rational, and extremely knowledgable. Always enjoy his perspective.

Schizo runs deep in all of us I reckon.

I'm also developing a Cuben pack so ... ha!

"That's it, I am selling my tarp."

Yeah? How much? .......

Anytime a PHD uses "ha" as a comback it makes me smile.

Well played Dr. Jordan ;0)

I'm sorry, as much as I like to argue I just like to smile more.

For a bunch of dirt dogs we all spend way to much time staring at a screen.

Be well BPL'ers

Bill

Predictions:

Those who get one will use it for UL, but will not throw away their SUL pack(s)

There won't be any left in inventory for the 2010 Gamblers Sale

Children of the large-beaked bird will sing and dance around the fire

37 ounces IS too heavy for a pack - - when your aim is to teach people about the lower limits of ultralight backpacking over the course of a weekend. I believe the comments referred to from Mike C! and I were in relation with our teaching the WTS-WS1 courses in which we strived to teach students about absolute minimalism in their gear and practices.

For those of us who have tested those limits and are comfortable reeling themselves back in to find their "sweet spot". Or for people who are going to be trekking five, six, seven, even nine days w/o resupply then a 37 ounce pack becomes necessary.

And to comment on this pack's use for climbing - - yes, it would make a fine day-cragging pack. No it wouldn't suit itself well for use on a big wall.

Sam - the discussion around the 37oz pack was for 6 days in the Beartooth Mountains. Not a 2 day weekend. For 2-3 days I use a frameless pack. Not for 6 days with 12lbs of food and water. Doable? Yes. Comfortable? No.

Is the belt removable on this pack for a climbing harness? Where can crampons be attached so that there is no damage to the pack body? Hopefully you can see my perspective now.

Reading the wide swings in opinions on this pack and what it should be used for I get the impression that no one really knows. More and more it seems like a pack looking for a reason to be, rather than filling in a specific need. At least SUL and frameless UL packs know exactly what they are and what they are intended for and for what weights. I also get the feeling that, as time goes on, the proselytizing about going at the lightest weights possible is gradually losing its luster and people are beginning to admit that going too light is very uncomfortable, perhaps even unsafe? I don't know... does this mean that what the traditionalists have criticized about the UL'ers might in fact have a bit of truth to it? This talk now, by the very people who helped to get all this so popular, seems very much at odds with all the early articles and discussions five or six years ago.

I'm curious, how many of you out there have found yourselves retreating and returning to heavier weight articles? Is going UL going too far? I've read quite a number of times now of people speaking of "diminishing returns". For us more experienced UL'ers out there, do you find that to be true? What items have you allowed to gain back weight?

"This talk now, by the very people who helped to get all this so popular, seems very much at odds with all the early articles and discussions five or six years ago."

I have been thinking about this. Thanks for 'saying' it.

We should start a new thread in General Discussion about this. I always try to go UL, but it will depend on my environment. The Canadian Rockies can be unkind, whereas on Vancouver Island or in the Uintas Mountains in Utah in the summer I can get away with less 'back-up' in case something should go wrong.

I have found myself desiring to return to a slightly heavier pack. I first achieved a 10 lb base weight with a vapor trail pack. It was an extraordinarily comfortable pack. However, I had just caught the ul bug and wanted to try to lower my base weight even further. So, I sold the vapor trail and purchased a 1st generation jam2. The jam2 was a great value at $80 after an rei coupon. I trimmed it to under 20 oz.
The jam2 was almost as comfortable as the vapor trail if I used a foam pad rolled as a virtual frame. Unfortunately I never sleep well on the the trail with a foam pad. After experimenting with foam pads, prolites, torsolites, and ba air cores I found that I sleep best with the thicker inflatable pads. Despite my best efforts to pack carefully I can't get the jam2 to carry quite as comfortably without a cylinder foam pad virtual frame. For the past six months I have been contemplating going back to the vapor trail. I have held off because I am hoping that the new bpl pack will carry as comfortably as the vapor trail and be a little more feature friendly.
I know a lot of people here are willing to carry extra weight to get a better nights sleep and for me that extends beyond just the type of pad to the type of pack as well.

Edited by sdwhitey on 01/23/2010 12:18:21 MST.

Interesting thoughts Miguel. Personally my favorite type of backpacking is to hike down to dusk with my little modified Golite Ion and SUL gear. In that sense I don't regret going light and expect I will eventaully get a bit lighter.
On the other hand when I have a friend who wants to stop earlier and go at a slower pace I'm more inclined to through in a few luxeries. If I felt like spending the money this would be an attractive "luxery pack" to be combined with a neo-air mattress for slower paced trips.

"Or for people who are going to be trekking five, six, seven, even nine days w/o resupply then a 37 ounce pack becomes necessary."

Not necessarily true, Sam. 9 day un-resupplied trips have been done with an OHM by at least 2 BPLer's that I know of. 14-15 days without resupply? Yeah, probably.

Nine days of gel packs and fat reserves? Yum!

"Nine days of gel packs and fat reserves? Yum!"

Nope. A diet very similar to that of Don Wilson and Alan Dixon on their recent Sierra trip. 1 pound 6 oz/day @ ~2800 calories/day. The keys, as they mentioned are careful attention to packing and calorie density. Also, I wasn't using a canister, which frees up space and weight, but I was carrying food for 10 days-we ended up coming out 1 day early. I have practice loaded my Ohm with food for 12 days. It fits by slightly extending the collar. The only issue is that I will be up at around 29 pounds, not including any water, and that is starting to push the comfort envelope a bit if I add in 2 liters of water for dry East Side Sierra approaches. Still, it is only an issue for a day. It is eminently feasible.

Fat reserves? Definitely. SOP for me. My calorie density is about 10-15 calories/ounce less than Don and Alan's. That is because I have a higher percentage of my food in carbs to burn my body fat. The downside is less total calories/ounce of carried food, but it works fine for me, at least up to 9-10 days. Much beyond that and I'd use less carbs, more protein, and a couple more ounces of fat.

"More and more it seems like a pack looking for a reason to be, rather than filling in a specific need."

I'm 6'3", 240 lbs and have broad shoulders. My first experience with a frameless pack was my last experience. While it was so nice to be "UL" it was ridiculously uncomfortable, un-adjustable and no it couldn't have sustained me for anything past an overnight. It didn't feel good to wear the pack.

Being bigger, my clothes are larger thus taking more volume, they weigh more. I eat more than someone of average height, my quilt is larger at 61 inches wide and 84 inches long.

When it comes to packs I personally didn't want to buy anything without having tried it on if it wasn't fully adjustable. The major selling point with this new BPL pack is just THAT. It's adjustable, a little more volume if you need it, able to carry loads more than a few days and while not "SUL" 2 lbs to a person like me is nothing. If the price is right, I may buy it based on those merits alone.

I think the pack will sell well if it is indeed as adjustable and durable as Ryan claims it is. Minimalist is ok and is a HYOH. Then there are people like me who want to be as light as can be, but comfortable. I think this pack will address that need.

A 2 lb pack fits completely within the 10 lb base weight typically associated with going UL.

I like some of the honesty I'm seeing in this thread. I witnessed and lived through the soft pack/frameless pack fad during the 70s. Having done that, it was easy to predict what is being said in this thread. It's just a matter of time before people want to carry a little more to be comfortable, whether it's a more substantial sleeping pad sytem or carrying a more substantial pack. Once people see that going lighter than they even need too is pointless, then they ask what is the point? The UL movement hurts itself by making anyone think they are too heavy with a 35 lb load, whether it is for 2 days or 10.

Edited by wildlife on 01/23/2010 18:32:39 MST.

Sorry for going on a tangent, but reading Dan's post above, I agree that the point of going ultralight -- at least initially -- was to make the hike more enjoyable. Everyone has a "sweet spot" where the load is light enough that he or she can hike all day without undue stress or discomfort. Mine is about 25 lbs.

But like with almost anything, there will always be some who want to take things to the extreme. Nothing wrong with that as psychic benefits can feel just as real -- but I do agree with Dan above. To the traditional backpacker unaccustomed even to ultralight backpacking -- the quest for SUL will strike most of them as odd.

I think after a certain point its not so much about comfort as challenge. I don't have time or money to go up to Alaska anytime I want but I can challenge myself in Virginia by carrying a lighter load and learning how to sleep under a poncho etc. At this point a complete 3 season gear list for me is about 8 pounds, 10 if I add all my extra luxery items. Thats plenty light but what do I normally do? I leave a lot of that great gear at home and go out with my little SUL pack, foam pad and poncho tarp just to see if I can. Am I just crazy or do other people here think the same way?

That just happens to be where you are at with it now. Maybe you will get over thinking it's cool to go out with your tarp. There is certainly nothing wrong with a challenge - that's what it's about for many. For many others, just getting out is important, and there are those that have used tarps, bivi bags and etc. that now use a nice light free-standing tent. It's when what you do HAS to be what other people want to do that it gets ugly. It's when it goes from challenge to dogma that I don't like it. Personally, I can't stand the term 'traditional'. Traditional seems to have taken on the meaning of 'those other stupid people'. I'm not implying that's what you mean Ben. :>)

Edited by wildlife on 01/23/2010 19:19:42 MST.

I agree Dan, its just a personal choice. My sweet spot is to try and keep my total pack under 25 pounds as much as possible. Beyond that, SUL is just a fun exercise. I suspect I'll carry more this spring when I go out with my friends (Tarp tent etc, we don't hike all day when we're together).
All that said I get really excited when I see lighter packs like the Absaroka and the Exos because in my opinion it makes reasonably light (as in less than 30 pound packs) backpacking more available to guys who aren't freaks.
Speaking of traditional my dad did some hikes in the 70s and to be honest it sounds like they kept things pretty light and simple even without all the fancy gear of today.

Edited by Cameron on 01/23/2010 19:35:37 MST.

Yeah, it's all pretty fun. I still need to get a quilt to offset the weight of my tent a little. I hate to cute up my old WM Mitylite to do that!

"This version of the Absaroka Pack is targeted to thru-hikers, expedition trekkers, and others who want maximum comfort and long term durability out of a pack. We are designing this pack to carry 40+ pound loads in comfort."

In the write up, the first word THIS is underlined.

IMO, this version does not bring with it the demise of SUL. I still plan to use my Zpack and a 5 lb base weight on certain trips. Sure it's a mainly in the brain thing for most hikers when going below 10-12 lbs base. But it's like the reasons why they climb mountains and trek to the Poles or around Alaska or you get in shape or lose weight or play a musical instrument or master a camera, etc. - because it's there and can be done - and you need to push yourself. You have the power to make your life better.

My long range goal is thru-hiking so, for me, THIS version might be the pack I will use for THAT because it will be durable and comfortable. If there is confusion, then re-read the write up.

Man, I hope I'm not the only one here who thinks 10 lbs sure feels different than 20 lbs!

The "sweet spot" concept is a good one, and it can be unique both to the hiker and their situation. Just as terms like "traditional" can sound derogatory (many people hiking at that weight are carrying the hottest new technology), the notion that tarp users are "freaks" worried about looking cool isn't exactly a compliment. What a site like BPL can help any hiker do, regardless of their goals, is make educated choices about what kind of hike suits them.

Most hikers I've encountered on the trail with 30+ lbs packs have not CHOSEN to carry that weight as opposed to lighter alternatives. Either due to lack of experience, or a flurry of expensive impulse purchases at REI, they are carrying much more than they want or need, and regretting it. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that those kind of pack weights are always a result of inexperience. But choosing that load based on a careful consideration of personal preferences, the particular situation, and the viable alternatives is much different than succumbing to a marketing blitz on the pages of Outside Magazine.

I pack light so I can carry much of my girlfriend's stuff in my pack. She thinks that's much cooler than the tarp. ;-)

James

I think this pack will appeal to those who haven't been happy with frame less packs and to those who are looking to do longer unsupported trips with heavier loads. However, it doesn't seem to me that the development of this packs shows that frame less packs were some kind of fad that didn't work and that poeple have now realised this and are moving on.

James if you thought "freaks" sounded bad please don't take it as an insult. Note that I included myself under that heading as well. I said that because thats what I get called when people see my little Ion pack. They think I'm weird not cool. I try and explain I have a system that works but no one seems to get it. I've tried 10 pound packs and love them too. The point was that 20-25 pounds was "Good enough" for me. If my sole concern was avoiding a sore back at the end of the day I could have stopped there.
I went lighter mostly as a challenge and discovered in the process I could cover a lot more ground that way. I love going SUL or close to it but if I'm going to spend a lot of time in camp with a buddy I bring a few luxery items because I can.
I would totally agree with your point that a lot of people are carrying a lot of weight because they don't know any better. Many of these people could achieve the same comfort level for a lot less weight just by shopping around more carefully.
It really depends on what your goals are. I like hiking all day with a really light pack. My friend hikes for 8 to 10 miles max and stops well before dinner and enjoys the scenery. He doesn't need a SUL pack and probably is better off with a few extra items.

Edited by Cameron on 01/23/2010 21:52:30 MST.

Luke,

No worries, I knew it was all in good fun and took no offense. I say let those silnylon freak flags fly! For fear of instigating too much thread drift here, I'll add that the Absaroka looks very nifty, and I'll be eager to hear about people's field experiences with it.

James

Yep just wanted to make sure we were okay James. The silnylon freak flag was a pain to raise (31 grams)so I am replacing it with Cuban:)

Back to the pack it does look interesting. The advantage I see of this pack for a thru-hiker is the flexability. Its barely heavier than a lot of frameless packs but I suspect it would be well worth it if you had to go a long distance between resupplies. Stories of hauling water on the southern PCT come to mind for example.

As I stated early on in this thread, this new pack is probably not for me.

However, we cannot judge a pack based only on its weight. What we need to do is wait until those who buy it give us their feedback.

I do find it ironic that I have seen many, many recommendations here on BPL for the ULA Catalyst & Circuit (47 oz & 36 oz), GoLite Pinnacle (33 oz), Granite Gear Vapor Trail (37 oz), and others in the 2 lb range. And now this Absaroka is blasphemy?

Who determines what is an acceptable weight for a pack, shelter, or sleep system? Ultimately the user. Not the pundits here on BPL.

Regarding the notion that many of us have overshot the UL paradigm, and are moving back to an equilibrium of heavier weight. Not necessarily.

I am one of those who carried the “heavy” external frames in the 60’s & 70’s, moved to internal frames, then back to external, and now have embraced the UL packs. I still have and like my old Kelty external pack. Even in my early years, I practiced lightweight, given the available gear of the time. I have always used a tarp as my main shelter. I sill have two Gaz Globetrotter stoves and some of the long obsolete Gaz cartridges. Weight-wise, they were revolutionary for the time. The mindset was there; technology had just not caught up.

This year I will turn 60. I am not as strong or as quick as I once was. Today UL equipment allows me to enjoy the same kind of hiking I did 40+ plus years ago. I can hike with my 23 year old son and he does not have to slow down for me, and I do not have to push to keep up with him. We can just hike and enjoy the trip. The UL equipment expands my limits, and does not put me in harms way. It is technology. Lighter equipment, made from newer materials. None of the equipment of the past 40 years is revolutionary. It has been evolutionary, slowly improving each year.

UL equipment allows me to continue to hike a lot. And since I hike a lot, I can still sleep well with a NightLight or TorsoLite pad. And these pads lighten the load. I have tried tarp tents, and just don’t like them. A tarp works better. I used my first tarp in 1969. A tarp lightens the load. My Nunatek quilt and WM bag are both lighter and warmer than the 600 fill down bag I carried for decades. And they lighten the load. So, I don’t need a “heavy” pack, whatever that is.

There are some luxuries I will continue to use, as my experiences with the alternatives are not viable for me. I shall always carry toilet paper of some sort. Leaves don’t cut it, and there aren’t any in the desert. Finger toothbrushes do not hack it either. And Dr Bronners for toothpaste sucks. Just my opinion and what works for me.

So let us wait until the Absaroka comes out, and then judge it on its merits. And let’s continue to seek lighter alternatives, based on individual needs, and not hold our minds and bodys hostage based on what the UL community declares as gospel. However I shall continue to weigh (pun intended) the opinions of the many folks here who's knowledge and experience I value.

That is my two ounces... or is it cents?

Edited by ngatel on 01/24/2010 01:29:23 MST.

That was really well said Nick. Thank You. :)

@ Nick

Good post. Like you, going lighter helps me keep up with my sons. And, when solo, I obtain self-satisfaction from going further and faster than I did when I had stronger legs and less attention seeking back.

Most likely, I will take the risk of getting the new pack before the reviews. Hey - somebody's gotta or we'd have no reviews. : )

Hey, the Absaroka is probably not for me, but only because I already have packs that suit my needs perfectly. Both packs are heavier than the Absaroka (Exos 58 and LuxuryLite), but have been essential in helping me transition to lighter loads. My loads are generally comfortable at 9-12kg (total), and that is all that matters to me. I used to carry 20-25kg!! To choose a lighter pack just for the sake of it, or for a challenge, just does not appeal. I also tried the frameless packs, tarps etc...and didn't like them. End of story. If I'm not comfortable, I'm not enjoying my outdoor experience.

Are there any estimates of what the pack will cost?

None as of Friday.

Any news on the BPL Absaroka Pack?

Release date? Pre-order? Cost?

Clicking on the original posters link it states the BPL Absaroka has a target date of June 2010....

Anyone - BPL Staff Member with new information?

At this time the pack is still scheduled for a summer release but we have are not yet ready to release a date or pricing information.

"At this time the pack is still scheduled for a summer release but we have are not yet ready to release a date or pricing information."

Ballpark? $200? $400? Under $300? Something!

be careful, the more interest you show the higher the price could be..

There are already an unbelievable assortment of packs (and quilts) on the market. Why can't BPL concentrate on making more of some of the popular items from the past that are no longer available or always out of stock?

I entered the backpacking world with no preconceived notions... and thankfully started my outdoors education here on BPL rather than with a trip to the local store. Although I like to be lightweight, I decided in my first couple hikes that comfort was as important as weight carried.

I chose the Osprey Exos 46 for it's relative light weight and many features. I chose a BA clearview pad for it's comfort over a foam pad, despite the small weight gain.

The beauty of a community like this is being able to see the decisions others make in their gear selection and maybe think about seeing if you can more finely tune your methods and gear choices. Others think of innovations that I don't, and I appreciate being able to take from their experience to increase my enjoyment of the outdoors.

I don't think anyone should be quick to label ANY individual piece of gear as being "not lightweight" just because they wouldn't consider using it based on how many ounces it weighs. Others may find that it suits their needs and gear system perfectly, while still maintaining very low base weight.

If I didn't own my Exos 46 and where considering purchasing a pack, this one would definitely be in my top considerations. I would love to see a hiking pole strap like the one on the Exos.

Since Ken brought this thread back to life, I'll toss in my tuppence...

A pack which is very adjustable and modular for under a kilo is something worthwhile, IMHO.

I'm more of a utilitarian/minimalist than a gram counter, especially when it comes to packs. I'd rather have a pack which is comfortable and can be used in a variety scenarios than a dozen packs for each kind of hike, trek and trip I may go on.

The Absaroka is in the weight class of the Jam2 and Vapor Trail, but carries the loads of much heavier packs like ULA Catalyst and GG Nimbus Meridian. With the exception of the SMD Starlite and SMD Traveler I can't think of any other packs which offer that, along with the same level of flexibility.

This being Backpacking *Light* not Backpacking Ultralight or Backpacking Super Ultralight, I feel that this pack is pretty appropriate.

It looks awfully hard to fit 40lbs of stuff into a pack this small to take advantage of it's rated carrying capacity. With a 'total volume' of ~45L, it appears the main bag is ~30-35L.

So it finally has a price - Not sure if that's a good one or not. Are there any videos? I have hard time trying to visualize volume . . . I'd like to know exactly how big this thing is.

Patrick the packs aren't done being manufactured yet. We expect to have them by the middle of October.

Hmm....$220 is the price or $209 for members. That's about what I expected.

Great for a first effort. But... the tiny loops at each side are for?? They are too small to use with even 1/2" webbing straps to support side pockets.

Since I use a hydration system, not bottles, I'd ENTIRELY cut off the side pockets and attatch removable side pockets that zipped shut. I'd mount them on captive side compression straps.

Also a detachable zippered top lid/pocket is needed in addition to the roll-top setup. That way the detatchable top lid/pocket could double as a fanny pack for side trips if it had 2 webbing belt lops sewn on the underside or you could leave it at home.

Just sayin'...

Edited by Danepacker on 09/21/2010 19:14:09 MDT.

> the tiny loops at each side are for?? ... too small to use with even 1/2" webbing straps

Bungee cord?

Cheers

Eric...are you serious? Those are some pretty odd suggestions imo...You're suggestions will prob add a pound to the overall weight. You've more or less described features that you can find on any most major manufactured pack available at REI. My old 7lb gregory palisade 80 had a top lid with the gimmicky waist belt/fanny pack conversion. There's no point to a fanny pack lid when your pack is light enough to take on side excursions. I do this with my Jam2 all the time.

My old palisade also had zippered side pockets that were useless in my opinion. Zippered waistbelt pockets are sufficient for things that need to be kept close. I understand that you don't use water bottles, but don't you ever keep yor snacks, tent poles, fishing rods etc in open side pockets?

And about the lil loops...I think you're missing the point of those entirely. They are meant for bungee cord that you configure to your own needs. You could set up bungee cord for compression, for lashing across the front to dry tarps, jackets, etc, or use bungees to set up axe loops. They were never intended for heavy duty webbing. Otherwise BPL would be making a pack similar to offerings by Kelty, Gregory and all those brands that BPL'ers dont really care for.

Edited by Konrad1013 on 09/21/2010 20:34:35 MDT.

Gotta agree with Konrad. If you want a zippered pocket, buy a zippered pouch and stick it in the side pocket. A removable lid that becomes a lumbar belt seems like overkill on a 45 L pack that weighs 32 oz. Day trip? Take out your pack liner/dry bag with most of your gear, leave it in the tent, and go on your merry way.

Don't get me wrong, I like detachable lumbar pack lids and I don't think they're always gimmicks. That said, I don't really use them on the trail myself- I use a removable lumbar pack a lot more when I'm traveling and leave the main pack (Granite Gear) in the car or where I'm staying.

Edited by areichow on 09/23/2010 09:39:12 MDT.

Def agreeing with Aarons statement above. I pack UL as long as it makes sense and this pack would def find its way into my gear list if I did not already have somthing similar.

Any plans to sell a shock cord/cord lock set as one of the customizable options? It'd fit right in with the belt and strap options, and the shock cord on the back definitely helps expand the pack's carrying capacity as far as volume is concerned.

I'll probably put in an order at OWFINC for some 1/8" polypro shockcord and a cord lock, but aesthetically I'd prefer it in a matching gray from BPL than the standard black cord I've found online.

I'd recommend that BPL add a couple more small tie loop pairs (front & back) along each side. Thios would permit using light cord or webbing to compress teh pack and to carry skis when necesary.

Otherwise it's got a comfortable looking suspension system and nicely designed side/shovel pocket combo. I prefer a top compartment on my packs but a light fanny pack can strap on as a dual duty top compartment and side trips pack.

"It looks awfully hard to fit 40lbs of stuff into a pack this small to take advantage of it's rated carrying capacity. With a 'total volume' of ~45L, it appears the main bag is ~30-35L."

You're right, Dan, but these characteristics make it ideal for carrying coal into Highland bothies. That comment is almost tongue in cheek, but not quite. Next time I go to Bearnais, the place will be toasty. I think the design brief was for a sack which could contain a lot of food and a little super ultralight camping gear, which would explain the sumptuous hip belt and firm shoulder straps.

I totally agree with John and Eric. The sack needs more loops at the edge and it should come equipped with some nice grey cord.

In a controversial article, Roger suggested that things could fall out of mesh side pockets. At the time, being familiar only with mesh pockets on the Jam, I disagreed. However, the slant on the Absaroka's pockets make me suspect that he could be right in this case. The pockets do not feel all that secure, another argument for supplying the sack with a slightly stretchy, grey cord.

I'll know better after Easter when I at last get a chance to take the Absaroka for a walk.

Edited by Bukidnon on 04/04/2011 10:24:26 MDT.

> In a controversial article, Roger suggested that things could fall out of mesh side pockets.

I did. If I make that 'tall thinks like water bottles could fall out of low mesh side pockets' and the point would be more obvious. I often see stuff on the easier (ie novice) trails.

Cheers

John wrote>In a controversial article, Roger suggested that things could fall out of mesh side pockets. At the time, being familiar only with mesh pockets on the Jam, I disagreed.

Roger wrote> I did. If I make that 'tall thinks like water bottles could fall out of low mesh side pockets' and the point would be more obvious. I often see stuff on the easier (ie novice) trails.

I have to agree with Roger here, I have had several water bottles fall out of the side pockets on my Jam2.

Tony

All,

I have to say I really love the pack. Shock cord, and less slant in the pockets are the only thing I would change as stated above. Otherwise this pack hit my needs on the nose. I have many more packs but my 4 kids are big and backpacking now so they have all become hand me downs. I sold all of my other technical (read heavy) packs and have been using ULA and Golite Breeze, Jam, and Pinnacle for years now.

I was surprised by how stiff the padding was, but it has ended up being darn comfortable. It works great as a day pack too. I really live the features and enjoy the hip belt. It is my first pack with hip belt pockets; a really nice feature by the way. Snacks, knife, aquamira, sun screen, and other go to items all fit. I love it.

This is the first pack in a long time that I haven't used a sleeping pad as a frame. So I am back to using a cut down Z-Rest and strapping it to the top of the pack. My stove goes in the outside pocket. This increased my eating of soup at lunch. I love my hot food.

I give this pack 4.5 out of 5 stars. Just a little less slant on those back pockets and not making me hunt for shock cord for the back would be a total winner.

By the way, take a BPL course. I saw this pack used by Ryan last year and a lot of other gear that I really loved to see. It was worth it!

Jason

Jason, I agree. This is a superb pack. I used it over 40 miles on the AT last week and it was a joy. Very comfortable and quite cool due to the venting back design. Everything fit inside except for the TT Moment which I slid into one of the side pockets. Yes, a little less slant on those side pockets would be nice. Also, some D-rings on the shoulder straps would be great to keep my water bottles up front.

I did end up getting a ULA Ohm after the trip which has a similar inverted "U" stay system but more room. I'll probably switch between the two depending on my use and mood.

Eric

Well, I like it anyway. It does carry 35lbs loads good, and I see a real market for this. the things I would like to see improved are:

1. Better quality control. I have 2 of these and both were delivered with the frames instaled wrong (instructions were provided on how to correct this) and the velcro doesn't match up on the suspension mounting.

2. More functional side pockets. The material is great, but the taper is too long for me. The bottom of the pockets are also somewhat tapered and would serve better if the bottom the sewn flat(gusseted) accross.

3. Low volume accross the board. The small is too volume restricted and there are no real size differences between large and medium.

The above are just my thoughts on how I use this pack. I am sure that this is the perfect pack right off the shelf for many. I just prefer an little more volume so the pack is more versitle under more conditions for my currrent skill set and gear selections. I have sent one of mine off to be modded to better suit my needs.

Regards,
John

Obviously now that BPL doesn't have a gear shop, these beauties will be hard to get a hold of. I totally understand the reasons why the gear shop had to close, but I was really hoping we could buy a stack of these Absarokas (like maybe 20+) if I could arrange the funding through our Scout Association in South Australia...the idea I had being that the packs are loaners for Scouts to use if they get some instruction and leadership on UL backpacking techniques first.

Any idea who made these (...is it someone like ULA?) and can they still be made in batches in the future?