Suspect outside pockets not so much a UK/Europe vs USA thing as climbing vs mountain marathon etc.

Climbers (Crux very much and Lightwave by inheritance) don't use them of course. Mountain marathon sacs the other source of lightweight things, and they seem very keen on all kinds of external storage. Like OMM(UK) for instance.

Mostly european manufactures has a strong tradition making "mountaineering packs"
when they manufacture "light packs" sometimes they use "alpine designs" (no pockets)

Anyway in european users use to "keep all the stuff in" and use to drink during stops or use hydration bags as roger explain

About Cilogear packs My pack (dyneema 60 2010) weights more than 2kg total weight ... much more over the criteria...

Good stuff. Great point and review about the inconsistencies of pack volumes. Something to be aware of even if your favorite pack/brand isn't in the article.

Looking forward to the next part of the review.

"We can of course import them sight-unseen - as can you with the Crux and Lightwave packs."

No. We can't.

Er, why not? Try this store here.

http://www.ultralightoutdoorgear.co.uk/lightwave_ultrahike_60.html

They will ship to the USA for about £20.

I'm in Canada.

They ship to Canada too. Are you doing this just to annoy me?

Whether you are annoyed is irrelevant to me.

Andrew
Re Ping Pong balls...
You are indeed correct. I am posting this at 5:30 am cause at about 4 am I woke up thinking about that..
I run a test (in my head...) using a bucket of a known size only to realise that as you state the air gap remains more or less the same regardless of the shape of the container..
Franco

I do have a Deuter ACT Lite 40+10 pack, but it turned up just a little late in the day ... Apparently that was the largest they could send at the time. It will be reviewed along the same lines as soon as.

I haven't checked recently, but I suspect the ACT 60+10 might be over the weight limit?

Cheers

which is why I haven't kept up with all the questions. There may even be a few typos in the articles, but NOT in the metric measurements as far as I know (because I took those measurements myself, rather than relying on the vendor).

Yes, I am sure we could have tested even more packs. But do please note the word 'tested'. BPL does NOT do desk reviews like some mags: all gear gets taken out into the field and USED. The amount of work involved has been huge; the volume of packs lying around the house has been equally large. Sue (my wife) has been very tolerant, and even cooperative.

Anyhow folks: there are another FIVE instalments to come! Another two on 'theory', and then three with mini-reviews of EVERY pack tested.

Policy statement: you can expect more in-depth surveys of this nature in the future - with lots of real measurements. Feedback is always appreciated.

Cheers

First of all: PLAY NICE. I will put the smackdown on you guys if need be. Mostly by harassing you via email.

That counts as smackdown, right? Right?!

Second, apologies for the conversion errors. Roger included some conversions for our American readers, I came up with some of the others, and it's just a messy task, especially considering how big this article is. The errors that were pointed out have been fixed. Please feel free to PM me if you notice typos or errors - they drive me nuts, and I appreciate the help!

Third, we're trying something new with this SOTM. The big SOTM itself will be published in three sections (first one here) in successive weeks (almost all at once, but with one-week breathers between each). We'll skip a week, and the last piece of the SOTM will have individual mini-reviews published all at once. Rather than draw things out like we did with the down jacket SOTM, I will be loading ALL of the reviews and making them accessible from one page. I'm exhausted just thinking about it, but it will hopefully be a great tool for readers.
Thanks!
Addie

" the volume of packs lying around the house has been equally large"

... a new meaning for the phrase, "Pack rat" ...

Anyway, I have to admit that the plethora packs cluttering up your house would be entertaining to see. Now I'm imagining a similar profusion of tents...

> a new meaning for the phrase, "Pack rat"
Please: the technically and politically correct term is 'gear freak' :-)
(Pack rats collect ANYthing; gear freaks collect interesting gear.)

> Now I'm imagining a similar profusion of tents...
I have no more than 7 tents .... (I think)

But there are a few sleeping bags and quilts here and there, and a growing pile of other gear items waiting to be tested. Yeah, my wife does make the occasional comment.

Cheers

"Please: the technically and politically correct term is 'gear freak' :-)"

True... but since you were collecting packs, "pack rat" is funnier ;)

> Now I'm imagining a similar profusion of tents...
I have no more than 7 tents .... (I think)

only 7? heh, heh

Was in Petersburg, Alaska for whale watching once and commented to our guide/captain that from the looks of things the per capita boat ownership might be greater than 1 ... after a few moments of thought he replied that between he and his wife they accounted for nine!

2nd or 3rd for McHale packs, I'm sure Dan makes a pack in this size class that would come in a 3lbs 5oz.

The LBP36 is close in weight specs, and bomber over most of the packs tested.

Edited by mfog1 on 09/04/2010 13:30:43 MDT.

OK guys

If any supplier feels that we have missed a pack with an internal frame which should have been included, contact me with the details AND an offer to supply an unused pack for testing (non-returnable). My email is
roger@backpackinglight.com

However, please remember that the specs are 50 - 75 L and under 1.6 kg. In imperial, that's 3050 - 4575 cu in and 3.5 lb. 3000 cu in or 49 L does not meet this spec, neither does 1.7 kg (3.75 lb). We have to have a cut-off somewhere after all (but we can be a little flexible).

Also please note we measure pack volume per the ASTM Standard: unclosed outside mesh pockets will not be included in the measurement. Roll tops are measured with three rolls in the seal.

Under most circumstances we would test a Medium torso and a Medium hip belt. We are open to testing Mens and Womens models.

If the pack is more like a frameless pack with a stay (and several have been mentioned), then feel free to contact us but we may put it into a different category from 'internal FRAME packs'. They won't be rejected, just put into a different survey.

Cheers
Roger

Your saying that they have to have a manufacturer's volume spec of at least 50 liters, yet most of the packs you tested fall under this anyway = dumb?

Here ya go, but I doubt you'll get one for free, unless you want a demo, that you'll have to return.

http://mchalepacks.com/ultralight/detail/Little%20Big%20Packs.htm

Edited by mfog1 on 09/04/2010 18:14:57 MDT.

So what good does it do to compare a full-blown custom pack to what's available off the shelf? How is that fair, or even relevent?

Edited by skinewmexico on 09/04/2010 21:52:51 MDT.