the new ULA epic is posted, heads up!

I'm disappointed to be honest. I've been watching their website faithfully for the past 3 months waiting for the new lineup to show up. The price looks pretty steep considering it doesn't include a dry sack. I wonder why they didn't use a high resolution image for the posting?

I'm still true to ULA, love their packs and quality, but I don't think one of these is for me.

Good luck ULA!

It does look interesting. They solved (seem to have, at least) the problem of needing a number of different packs. Get this thing and you'll only need to have different dry bags to accommodate your different volume needs.

Interesting...

It looks a little sloppy with all the straps, but suppose it's so you can fit the different dry bags in it.

I'll be interested to see reviews

-> Just looked at the price- AAHHH!

Edited by WoodenWizard on 04/30/2010 16:14:34 MDT.

Hello.

The low resolution photo will be replaced ASAP. The image was taken quickly after one of the first Epics was completed from the sewer's table.

Casey
fun facilitator

After all the hype, this will be the only ULA pack I won't be buying. $275 and it doesn't even come with a dry bag?

"After all the hype, this will be the only ULA pack I won't be buying. $275 and it doesn't even come with a dry bag?"

That's because you can vary the size of the pack with different sized dry bags. Considering they cost from between $10 and $25 - suck it up.

You obviously don't remember the Arctic 1000 pack - over $300.

"After all the hype, this will be the only ULA pack I won't be buying. $275 and it doesn't even come with a dry bag?"

As I recall the BPL Arctic Ultra was $350 with dry bags (came with a 50L and a 65L.) So I don't think the ULA pack is priced out of line.

Edited by runsmtns on 04/30/2010 18:04:51 MDT.

I like the concept of swapping different dry bags depending on trip length, etc. But yeah,

1. $275 without even one dry bag is steep.
2. 32 oz without dry bag or stay is heavy

Why is it so heavy anyway??

I am confused about the stays. Per webpage:

o integrated - twin stays
o removable - twin stays (2.25oz each)

Which is it? Integrated and part of the 32.5 oz weight -- or removable and thus in addition to the 32.5 oz. weight? This pack doesn't really have 4 stays, right??

"Why is it so heavy anyway??"

Considering you can add a 70L drybag for about 7oz, what other framed, suspended, 70L waterproof pack weighing 2.5lbs currently exists?

Well, my focus is on the skeletal -- which seems uncharacteristically heavy. Are the stays part of the total or not?

And a 70L dry bag properly rolled up and secured gives us what? 50L or so?

Edited by ben2world on 04/30/2010 18:27:18 MDT.

I would suspect that the weight includes the stays otherwise not sure of the point of the pack.

No, a 70L drybag is a 70L drybag - unless you roll it down too far.

As with almost all the ULA packs, not designed for us short folks!

Considering that a 35 L pack is quite generously sized for me, I'm not too sure what I'd want with one twice as big anyway.

What is the difference between the Epic and the Arctic Drypack? I'm excited because I love my Arctic drypack but other then the straps on the bottom, it looks to be the same...maybe I missed something?

Just saw that it looks like the straps don't attach to the drybag itself...any other differences?

Edited by Steve_Evans on 04/30/2010 19:28:10 MDT.

"What is the difference between the Epic and the Arctic Drypack? I'm excited because I love my Arctic drypack but other then the straps on the bottom, it looks to be the same...maybe I missed something?

Just saw that it looks like the straps don't attach to the drybag itself...any other differences?"

I was wondering the same thing. If they did away with the straps attached to the dry bag, that would be a plus in my opinion. That was about the only thing I didn't like about the Arctic Ultra.

The pack looks great to me. It solves some of the problems with the arctic pack and does so at a lower price. There are some good deals out there right now for p.o.e. pneumo ltw drysacks. I might be tempted enough to purchase. We will see. Reminds me a lot of the first generation Dana designs racer x but better in my opinion.

Um, no. Not for me. I have the Arctic Dry Pack and this looks a lot less refined and even quite sloppy, actually. The only advantage I see is the lack of attachment to the drybag. The way the side straps angle down is worrisome and I'm wondering if there is a top strap to secure the pack over the top of the drybag. And to throw out such a sloppy photo... One disappointment after another.

"Considering that a 35 L pack is quite generously sized for me, I'm not too sure what I'd want with one twice as big anyway."

I look at this as the perfect modular approach in wet climates. But realistically, 35L is good for a couple of days. I suspect you would need a lot more volume for a week or more. Your climate may play a part in this.

Miguel - relax - Casey said he would post better pics shortly.

Don't think i'll ever be able to be in an environment that requires such a setup, so its not really my thing...reminds me a lot of the dana designs racer-x. Isn't this new pack too niche-crowd oriented? I bet they would sell more packs if they released a smaller conduit that a lot of people have been demanding. Hell, they could charge the same price as the conduit and people would still buy it...just look at the MLD burn. I'm normally very supportive to new ideas, and always willing to give things some time, and I hate to sling around the haterade, but I'm really having a hard time following ULA's new business direction

But my real question is this...it looks like they used 2008 style conduit hipbelt/pockets, which means they are still willing to sew a hipbelt of that style...anyone know if ULA would be willing to customize an ohm or a conduit to utilize this older style hipbelt? or has all personal customization left the company after Brian sold it? Edit* well i just shot them an email, lets see what happens

Edited by Konrad1013 on 04/30/2010 20:36:00 MDT.

I look at this as something like a "transformer" -- a pack that can do it all. I know, I know, this isn't the intended design, but imagine:

1. starting with a light weight skeletal with hip belt pockets and padding removed and a small sil or cuben pack bag for short trips or summit ascent.

2. adding hip belt pockets plus a medium sil pack bag for an overnighter or weekender.

3. adding some padding plus stays and a large pack bag for longer or more gear/water-intensive trips.

4. adding a heavier, waterproof dry bag for the most weather-challenging trips.

Same skeletal, plus different components and pack bags.

Edited by ben2world on 04/30/2010 20:32:30 MDT.