November 20, 2015 8:16 PM MST - Subscription purchasing, account maintenance, forum profile maintenance, new account registration, and forum posting have been disabled
as we prepare our databases for the final migration to our new server next week. Stay tuned here for more details.
Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: Main Bag & Comfort
Display Avatars Sort By:
Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: "Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: Main Bag & Comfort" on 09/19/2010 15:41:47 MDT Print View

I just came across this bit of research, and it made me think of this *discussion*:

"We Only Trust Experts If They Agree With Us

We only consider scientists to be experts when their argument is in line with our own previously held beliefs.

We think we trust experts. But a new study finds that what really influences our opinions, more than listening to any expert, is our own beliefs.

Researchers told study subjects about a scientific expert who accepted climate change as real. Subjects who thought that commerce can be environmentally damaging were ready to accept the scientist as an expert. But those who came into the study believing that economic activity could not hurt the environment were 70 percent less likely to accept that the scientist really was an expert.

Then the researchers flipped the situation. They told different subjects that the same hypothetical scientist, with the same accreditation, was skeptical of climate change. Now those who thought that economic activity cannot harm the environment accepted the expert, and the other group was 50 percent less likely to believe in his expertise. The study was published in the Journal of Risk Research.

The investigators found similar results for various other issues, from nuclear waste disposal to gun control. Said one of the authors, “People tend to keep a biased score of what experts believe, counting a scientist as an 'expert' only when that scientist agrees with the position they find culturally congenial."

David Chenault
(DaveC) - BPL Staff - F

Locale: Crown of the Continent
bladder durability on 09/19/2010 15:43:28 MDT Print View

If you own an MSR Dromedary bag, here's a neat trick:

Fill it mostly full, put on the lid. Take it into the yard, put it on the ground, and leap upwards, landing on the bladder with both feet and your full weight. The lid will fly off, water will go everywhere, and the Dromedary will be unharmed.

I'd never use a mere Camelbak type bladder on a trip where loosing my water would be problematic.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 16:00:00 MDT Print View

I Use this bladder:

And it appears to be as close to indestructible as any I've found.

Travis Leanna
(T.L.) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 16:21:08 MDT Print View

While that sounds like a neat trick, I don't think I'm going to try that! :)

I used the Dromlite 4L during a desert trip. I was glad to have the capacity and durabliliy.

Dondo .

Locale: Colorado Rockies
Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 16:25:45 MDT Print View

I'll take your word for that, Dave. ;-). Having had several Platypus and Nalgene bladders spring a leak while in the backcountry, I really don't trust them anymore. Now I mostly use an exterior water bottle plus a Dromlite when I need to carry extra water.

Travis Leanna
(T.L.) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Re: Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 16:48:26 MDT Print View

Could you describe the conditions surrounding your leaks? (terrain, temperature, placement in pack, location of leak on bladder, what exactly caused the leak, etc...)

Ken T.
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: All up in there
Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 16:57:45 MDT Print View

Shouldn't this subject be moved to a different thread since it has strayed so far from the article?

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 17:26:48 MDT Print View

"Shouldn't this subject be moved to a different thread since it has strayed so far from the article?"

Dunno. The article discusses the author's fear of bladder leaking in his pack, so it seems pretty relevant to me. I doubt that stomping on a bladder would break it (at least not the bladder I use, though camelbacks seem a lot less durable). However there is no doubt a sharp object could cause problems. More of an argument for careful packing than avoiding bladders IMHO.

Dondo .

Locale: Colorado Rockies
Re: Re: Re: bladder durability on 09/19/2010 17:26:56 MDT Print View

Ken,is right. I'll start another thread on this.

Charles S. Forstall
(csforstall) - F

Locale: The Appalachian Foothills of TN
RE: Agree to Disagree on 09/20/2010 09:34:02 MDT Print View

I think we might have to agree to disagree.


I suppose thats what's best. However I will do so with a few caveats.

I will encourage you not to use such leading language (especially in the absence of data) in the future. Honestly for all the data you have developed it still was really out of character for you Roger to formulate a sentence with "might." I am sure you disagree, but I am leaving you with a friendly reminder. Some other new guy to this site is just as likely to cause another friendly scuffle over minutia. This is just the nature of the beast, another downside to this whole World Wide Web thing.


Yes, I agree that the Internet and text messaging is in many ways a limited form of communication.


Robert Blean
(blean) - MLife

Locale: San Jose -- too far from Sierras
A couple more comments on 09/20/2010 18:32:22 MDT Print View

1) I do not know whether is is cause-and-effect, or coincidence, but as I think back my serious bladder/tube use started when I took up using hiking poles (thus encumbering my hands). Just a thought.

2) Pants pockets -- I'm not going to argue for or against hipbelt pockets (though I have hung my gorp sack from my hipbelt for decades -- sort of a pocket, I guess). But I will argue against the idea of using pants pockets instead. I strongly dislike putting anything non-trivial in my pants pockets. Doing so just causes way too much drag.


Lowe Alpine
(lowealpine) - F
Re: Re: Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: Main Bag & Comfort on 09/21/2010 14:44:14 MDT Print View

Hi T-Funk,

Re: "I'd like to see a lighweight pack that is both top loading and panel loading." You should check out the Nanon products from Lowe Alpine - they balance weight and durability through the use of Dyneema material along with a side access (ok, so almost panel loading.)

Mary D
(hikinggranny) - MLife
Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: on 09/21/2010 16:30:03 MDT Print View

We can argue all over the place about the utility of such things as pack lids, hydration bladders and side pockets, as we have been doing for 7 pages. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with the author's stating his own prejudices as long as he recognizes that contrary arguments have equal value in their own environment and at least tries not to let his own prejudices skew the upcoming ratings.

I personally want those outside pockets (tent on one side, water bottle and snacks on the other, rain gear on the front. I don't want a hydration bladder (my own personal prejudice) or a pack lid (adds weight). (Note that Mike C! is forever telling us to chop off our pack lids!) I really like going through the day without having to open up my pack. I am sure that if most of my backpacking were off-trail in devil's club and slide alder (the Pacific NW equivalent of Australia's bush), I would change my mind about pack pockets, especially mesh, in a hurry! I won't carry anything in my pants pockets; the pockets of women's pants, even those made for backpacking, are so shallow I'm scared of losing stuff out of them.

Not covered in the article, understandably so since the problem does not exist in Australia (lucky you!), is an extremely important issue for many US backpackers. Will the pack will hold a large bear canister (Bear Vault 500, Bearikade Expedition or Garcia 812)? More and more jurisdictions in the US require them (Grand Teton and Rocky Mountain National Parks started just this year, and Olympic National Park, which requires them in some areas, is discussing requiring them everywhere). Many backpacks won't hold a large size canister or will hold one only vertically,making it difficult to pack everything else. The answer can usually only be discovered by trial and error. Many US pack manufacturers are silent on this subject. Others state that the pack is "bear canister compatible" but don't mention the size of canister (the brands differ) or whether the pack will hold a large canister horizontally. The issue is important to me even though I do only one backpack per year where canisters are required. I can barely (pun not intended) squeeze a Bearikade Weekender horizontally into my pack (old model SMD Comet, since discontinued). The very slightly larger Bear Vault 500 won't go in horizontally, and obviously the largest Bearikade won't either.

It's obviously too late for Roger to include such info in his article, but it would be wonderful to have a future article surveying the pack vs. bear canister problem!

Edited by hikinggranny on 09/21/2010 16:39:03 MDT.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: on 09/21/2010 17:07:37 MDT Print View

On some future trip I'd like to try Rogers way of not using outside pockets to see what it's like.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: on 09/21/2010 19:44:44 MDT Print View

Hi Mary

> Will the pack will hold a large bear canister
You are right: this question was never even considered. You are also right in guessing why, but that is a poor excuse. My apologies about this omission.

Hum - we will have to try to remedy that somehow, someday. Not sure how.

Perhaps you or someone else with experience in this area could tell me whether it is realistic to tie the empty canister onto the top of the pack - or even (shudder) sling it underneath? I am assuming the canisters themselves are not that heavy.


Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: on 09/21/2010 19:50:08 MDT Print View

"> Will the pack will hold a large bear canister"

If you give us the dimensions of the canisters you carry, I'm sure those of us who own these packs could work out if they will fit or not.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Bear Cannisters on 09/21/2010 20:11:45 MDT Print View


This is a difficult thing to categorize. There are several brands, sizes and weights. Also, there are many best practices. Some people even carry them empty outside the pack, and then fill them up at the end of the day. Some can be carried under the top lid (in theory), and after actually trying it, they are slippery and move around. Many weigh over 2 lbs.

It probably needs to be a separate article. However when you look at the combinations of lets say 8 packs and 4 different canisters, there are a lot of combinations.

Dan Healy

Locale: Queensland
Re: backpack designs on 09/21/2010 20:53:30 MDT Print View

A lively discussion for sure...

however ...

Dale, ... noticed your water bottle attachment method as a singel loop of 3mm bungee cord around the top of your bottle.
Can I suggest another idea that was stolen off an adventure racing pack I use...
A single loop of 3mm bugee that goes around the top and bottom of the bottle. It is held securely even when jogging, is light, and very quick to use.

harness mounted water bottle

Mary D
(hikinggranny) - MLife
Bear canister details on 09/23/2010 20:21:58 MDT Print View

Most commonly used bear canisters--there are smaller ones, but these are the ones that can or do give problems when trying to get them into the pack:

Bear Vault 500

Wild Ideas Bearikade Weekender Not their largest size, but nearly as big as the Bear Vault 500 and a tight squeeze for my pack

Wild Ideas Bearikade Expedition

Garcia Backpackers Cache

Edited by hikinggranny on 09/24/2010 17:48:27 MDT.

Einstein X
(EinsteinX) - F

Locale: The Netherlands
Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 1C: Main Bag & Comfort on 10/07/2010 07:23:26 MDT Print View


Since there are seven pages of comment, I did not take time to read all of them. I'm sure from reading only the first page that much has been said about water bladders. For what it's worth I'd like to add my comment.

In the time I was still working in an outdoor gear shop, some customers were also worried that the bladder might pop. For this reason we had a filled test model in our shop and we would always ask our customers to stand on the test bladder with both feet and their full weight. It never popped, so I guess it also won't by tightly packing the stuff in your pack.

Having said that, this test bladder survived only until my boss decided to actually jump onto it and indeed then it popped. It's unlikely that such misuse will ever happen in the field.

Then again I have had bladders develop leak holes after some extended use which will wet the inside of your pack. Also I once didn't tighten the hose well which drained water into my pack.

So as you said, YMMV.