Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1A: Testing Overview and List of Packs Tested
Display Avatars Sort By:
Andrew Dolman
Availability on 09/01/2010 01:59:17 MDT Print View

"I also notice that several of the packs in the list aren't even available in North America......?"

A fairly sizeable portion of the BPL readership aren't available in North America either.

Actually, what % is that?

John Dunn

Locale: Southern California
Deuter on 09/01/2010 03:30:25 MDT Print View

No Deuter act zero 60+10 ???

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1A: Testing Overview and List of Packs Tested on 09/01/2010 06:16:00 MDT Print View

I'm looking forward to the other instalments.

One nitpick - in the 7th para you refer to 11kg as 41 lb - I think that should be 24.5 lb as discussed a bit further down in the article.

WV Hiker

Locale: West Virginia
Lowe Alpine on 09/01/2010 08:33:55 MDT Print View

I'm looking forward to the review of the Nanon - I'm thinking of getting one.

Edited by vdeal on 09/01/2010 08:36:37 MDT.

Dave -
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Up there
Lightweight Internal Frame Pack on 09/01/2010 08:37:56 MDT Print View

"A fairly sizeable portion of the BPL readership aren't available in North America either."

If all of the packs mentioned are available in your parts, but only 1/2 are available in the US, where the majority of membership resides, then I would opine that this is not a particularly robust sample.

To comment that "a fairly sizeable portion" and then immediately ask what that percentage would be suggests that you should first ask the question, get the answer, and then provide an irrelevant comment.

Gerry Brucia
(taedawood) - MLife

Locale: Louisiana, USA
Internal Frame Pack Review on 09/01/2010 08:41:10 MDT Print View

Regarding the American market's preference for outside pockets,besides access to water bottles, this may be in part due to our climate, especially in the eastern and southern United States where rainfall is plentiful. I never put my shelter inside my pack, preferring to put it in an outside pocket because it (the shelter) is more often than not, WET.

Dave -
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Up there
Lightweight packs on 09/01/2010 08:41:19 MDT Print View

"> How about a pack like the Osprey Talon 44

44 L - too small.


Roger, too small because of the trend by manufacturers to overstate pack volumes? Several of the packs listed appear to be under 50L in reality. Is this what you are finding?

I have always felt that Granite Gear packs are much smaller than claimed. It appears this is the case.

WV Hiker

Locale: West Virginia
Measurements on 09/01/2010 09:06:41 MDT Print View

Just a comment about mixed measurements. It's usually a good idea to keep units the same. In the first table we have cubic centimeters (even though liters are how packs are usually listed) converted to cubic inches. That's all fine but in the summary of that table it's now liters converted to cubic feet. Keep the measurements consistent. This is bad editing. No one talks about cubic feet in relation to packs. BTW, 1.43 cubic feet is 2,471 cubic inches. This should be fixed.

WV Hiker

Locale: West Virginia
Missing packs on 09/01/2010 09:53:52 MDT Print View

As another poster mentioned the Deuter AirContact Zero 60+10 fits your criteria with a weight of 3 lb 1 oz and a volume of 3650 ci. The Jansport Ascent Regular also fits with a weight of 3 lb 1 oz and a volume of 3203 ci.

Jim Cowdery
(james.cowdery) - MLife

Locale: Central Florida
How many readers still use internal frame packs? on 09/01/2010 09:55:47 MDT Print View

Roger; thanks for being a lightning rod and undertaking this task. It’s great to see someone establishing comparison criteria for such a complex task.

I am curious how many readers use the packs listed (or similar packs). If they do use these packs, how are they used? Are they used for multi-day trips with or without resupply? Are they used for winter trips or three season trips? Are they used for quick overnights?

I still use my Gregory Z-pack but only for a winter trip where extra gear is needed. My weights on these trips are generally over 30 lbs because of the heavier gear needed. For my three season trips and multi-day trips I use my SMD with stays. For the two to three day it has been my SMD but I plan on using my recently completed MYOG frameless pack.

Does BPL have the ability to take a reader poll? I think this would be a great companion to this article and in sharing the experiences of the BPL readers.

Chris W
(simplespirit) - MLife

Locale: .
Re: How many readers still use internal frame packs? on 09/01/2010 10:02:57 MDT Print View

I use my Ohm for anything more than a day hike. That includes 4 seasons and trips from overnighters to 5+ nights. I really need a smaller pack for 3-season outings but I'm trying to keep my clutter down and the Ohm has good compression.

nanook ofthenorth
(nanookofthenorth) - MLife
Cilogear on 09/01/2010 10:43:04 MDT Print View

Rodger the NWD Cilogear packs fit your test criteria at 3lb 5oz and 60L --- it really is too bad that they were not included in the review, or that the normal packs were not tested as a proxy

WV Hiker

Locale: West Virginia
Lowe Alpine Nanon mistake? on 09/01/2010 10:56:56 MDT Print View


I believe there is a mistake in the table as regards the Lowe Alpine Nanon 50:60. Lowe, on their UK site lists the volume as 50lt+10lt extension=60lt. This makes sense based on the name. They however screw up their conversion and say that it is 4000+600cu.ins when in reality it is more like 3000+600 cu ins. (actually 3051 ci + 610 ci for 3661 ci.). I wonder if the 10 liter extension counts the hip belt pockets, stretchable side pocket and back side pocket. Shouldn't these "2 size packs" really be based on their initial size and not the extended size since we don't really know what that means? If that's the case then the Nanon is well within it's listed size. I think part of the problem with Lowe Alpine is their US website is a subset of their international one and doesn't seem to be really put together all that well.

Chris W
(simplespirit) - MLife

Locale: .
Re: Cilogear on 09/01/2010 10:59:02 MDT Print View

Hmm...The NWD 60 Worksack is 3 lb 8 oz according to the site. It's also $750 which is likely too steep for the majority of BPL members/readers. Just pointing that out, not saying it shouldn't be reviewed because it's very expensive.

Edited by simplespirit on 09/01/2010 10:59:27 MDT.

Frank Steele
(knarfster) - F

Locale: Arizona
BPL? on 09/01/2010 10:59:54 MDT Print View

I thought this was BPL. A 45 oz tent and a 45 oz sleeping bag?

As far as the question of who still uses a internal frame pack? I use an Osprey Exos. I tried several frameless packs and they just were not as comfortable as the Exos.

Edited by knarfster on 09/01/2010 11:01:57 MDT.

nanook ofthenorth
(nanookofthenorth) - MLife
... on 09/01/2010 11:44:47 MDT Print View

No, but I think its worthwhile reviewing them, even if you were substitute the normal 60L as a stand-in for the NWD. I personally wonder how the packs would stack up (esp b/c the trail weight is so variable for them) and am disappointed that BPL did not include them in the review. Although I understand BPL not wanting to spend $750 on a pack - I think its a mistake not to include the Cilogear packs - they clearly meet the criteria of the review and have generated a lot of interest.

Edited by nanookofthenorth on 09/01/2010 11:47:14 MDT.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
as the saying goes... on 09/01/2010 12:19:51 MDT Print View

You can't make everybody happy all of the time.

Especially in this very interesting topic. I would have preferred more packs in the GG Gorilla, ULA Ohm range myself. But I understand that they had to draw the line somewhere to get this done in a reasonable timeframe.

Interested in reading the rest of the market report!

Dave -
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Up there
Lightweight Internal Frame Packs on 09/01/2010 12:35:16 MDT Print View

ClioGear makes climbing specific packs, which based on the initial criteria, would not fit in well with the group.

Einstein X
(EinsteinX) - F

Locale: The Netherlands
Interesting! on 09/01/2010 12:52:39 MDT Print View

Very interesting Roger, I'm looking forward to reading the next articles in the series.


Rakesh Malik

Locale: Cascadia
Re: Re: Cilogear on 09/01/2010 13:02:19 MDT Print View

Yowsa. They're in the same league, price-wise, as McHale.

Unless, of course, you get a McHale in full Dyneema... which is worth it if you carry stuff over and above the survival gear, like a view camera.