"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.