Dan

Thanks for the info and that makes good sense!

You make a hell of a pack as well and I have been told you are a first class guy! Keep up the good work and thanks for making a great product.

Aron

Go ahead and buy one, please dont endorse it like you do other packs. There is a difference between reviewing something, and endosing it. I have said that the Kifaru Packs would be just fine for some people. I am questioning particular claims, and voicing my opinion about particular parts of the designs. No, most manufactures don't speak out, this is bad for consumers. Most manufactures go along with most of the marketing hype in the industry because it serves them well. I have been questioned because of who I am, not because of the claims I've challenged. Back to the fabric.

Dan

You are correct. In a grid to sil comparison, I stand by what I said. But no, the grid is not nearly as tough as 100% dyneema.

You are indeed bold here!

Edited by wildlife on 12/21/2010 01:10:01 MST.

a : to approve openly ; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely

Josh, you are correct about that, and that is what I will do for companies that I know I can trust and that I know people can depend on!

Since your giving me advice, I will give a little back. Try one of the KU packs for yourself, because in the end, as people start using these packs, the truth will come out anyway and you and I arguing back and forth won't mean anything anyway.

Edited by THEELKREAPER on 12/21/2010 05:42:45 MST.

Dan
I may have let it go some time ago, but there are allot of bad claims about gear and fabric made here, as you know. Most times forum posters challenge particular claims, and some questioning ensues, especially around outdoor retailer time, and then it dies down. But I have always found it interesting when you question gear, and the only response is to be questioned yourself. So maybe this is nothing more than my own exercise in staying on subject. Or maybe I thought that there was something in the best interest of consumers to be learned here. You used to find that kind of thing here on BPL, science, state of the market reports, information. Do you know anything about 300 lb tear strength high tenacity nylon?

You mean a pure tear test? 300 lbs is not likely.

Edited by wildlife on 12/21/2010 00:36:42 MST.

"I always thought it best (if I had questions about someone's pack), to buy the pack and test it for myself, but I doubt that you will ever do that with open eyes."



Aron, no offense man, but, seriously?

That's mighty noble of you, but the main point of reviews, and one of the primary purposes of this section of the forum, etc., is the dissemination of information such that you can make an educated decision before you buy.

Frankly, considering the cost of this pack, and the lofty claims, this becomes all the more relevant.

Honestly, I'd think it more likely easier to be less critical of something (especially a pricey something), that you didn't have to pay for, than the thing you did. Not hard to love something free, unless you're intent to find it's flaws.

If I paid what they're asking for this pack, I'd expect full spectra/dyneema. Which is one of the things that makes me see how it could be very important for Kifaru to differentiate themselves from the "silnylon" image.

Which btw, I didn't respond again before, but in my book, any 30D(or other denier for that matter) ripstop nylon, that's silicone coated, single, double, triple, or quadruple, no matter how tenacious or american, or what the relevant test strengths, *is* silnylon. Plain and simple, all that appears to be going on here is the manufacturer playing the semantics game. As requested, "sticking with the facts", we've been given two contradictory statements by the manufacturer. 1) This isn't silnylon. 2) "mil-spec Ultra High Tenacity American ripstop nylon" & "silicone coated on both sides"


Obviously, my definition of "silnylon" and Kifaru's definition are different, and that's the problem, it's arbitrary, there is no consensus baseline.



Anyway, this has become a soap opera of skeptics vs believers, and it's getting downright near religious, and absolutely unproductive. I know I'm playing my part, but I'm not proud of it. This is a waste of time.


edit: spelling and grammar only, I'm not going to recant.

Edited by jdempsey on 12/20/2010 22:34:32 MST.

Josh, I added to my other post above but then edited. Go for it though, you have my blessing!

Edited by wildlife on 12/21/2010 01:08:28 MST.

Dan: I think it's important to point out that I'm pretty sure the 150lb comment is from Aron and not Kifaru themselves. I'm assuming you meant Kifaru when you say "they claim".

I personally put a lot of weight in his comments/reviews based on the number of packs I've seen him review and that amount of time he spends testing them under serious loads. You're right thought, it's very subjective.

As far as the fabric testing goes I think there is a bunch of stuff we need to figure out first. One is that we need a clear definition of what Kifaru is claiming to be fair. I think coming to a consensus on that will be a task in and of itself. To some it's very clear but to me it isn't so much so. I'm too tired to get into it right now though.

> Who wants to conduct the testing? You still game Roger?
Yeah, OK.
But let's get very clear agreement on the test procedure first. Clear diagram of how the fabric is to be held etc etc. I don't currently have access to the ASTM Standards - I'm theoretically retired and have no library at my beck and call.

Cheers

Roger I hear you on library access, I no longer have access either, and I'm not paying on a per standard basis.

Hear is a good link on Tongue tear testing http://www.uni.edu/tapp/pdf%20files/Tongue%20Tear%20Method.pdf

Trapezoid: http://www.instron.us/wa/solutions/astmd5587-tear-test-fabric-trapezoid-method.aspx?ref=http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aj0v2FRDrudaAluNbIvUSu.bvZx4

Here is a tester for pucture/propagation testing: http://www.qualitest-inc.com/elmendorf.htm Appears at to be a fairly simple machine, "appears" ;-)

I believe near duplication of ASTM standards is possible, but not neccassary. If 12 different Sils are tested, several 70Ds, cubens, WPBs, Down proofs, etc. A comparative scale will emerge, and with manufacturer test reports for 2-3 or more of the fabrics being tested, the results become scaleable to what ever standard, ie. Brinnel vs Rockwell. Testing need only be consistent across all samples.

Can't wait to see the testing...

Edited by bmstrong on 12/21/2010 13:54:47 MST.

Qualifications up front: I've known Patrick Smith for years. I like some Kifaru gear and use some, but don't believe anything is the end all be all. I'm one of those hunting/backpacking folks who spends a lot more time reading here than posting.

So if I've followed this right, the two guys who have actually used this pack, LOVE it. One of those guys is Ed Tyanich who has just a bit of experience in the outdoors and has tried a couple of different packs in his time. I've heard that he does get more than a mile or two from the trailhead as well and might be able to beat you there and back if you push him. Aron reviews packs but more on the hunting than the UL side. Let's just say he has some perspective even if it's different than the typical BPL person.

On the other side of the argument, we have a bunch of people who haven't held, much less tried the pack. The loudest being a competitor to Kifaru.

I'm always amazed by the armchair quarterbacks who can fully evaluate something without ever seeing it. I haven't seen one myself but I do know that it has been tested in various iterations in the field for years. There seems to be some sort of hang up on the 150 lbs. thing. Kifaru doesn't advertise it as a 150 lbs. pack. A tester successfully used it for that weight. Get over it. The point is they made a lightweight pack for heavyweight loads. Personally, I'd have to use one to form a firm opinion, but the fact that Ed T sold off his Kifaru G2 pack for his heavy hauling speaks volumes to me on the capabilities of the new Kifaru UL packs.

Is it the answer to your question? Maybe, maybe not.

I completely agree with what Chris is saying here and said much the same thing a day or two ago; anyone can rant away about various aspects of the materials used in an item of gear he has never used or even seen, however, the real test comes from using that item in the field under all conditions and for an extended period.

I am very pleased to see Aron posting here and hope he will continue to do so as I enjoy reading about actual mountain experiences and how the gear used really performed. I have far less interest in the carping from those who have never done what the packs under consideration here are intended for and appear to have an agenda where Kifaru is concerned.

I have great respect for Dan McHale and value any opinion on packs which he offers and Ed Tyanich and Aron have, IMO, provided a valuable service on this thread to anyone who may want/need a very light pack for hunting or many other uses.

I learned a lot here and am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Chris, you hit the nail on the head.

Sorry, I know some want this to end.

This has nothing to do with the fine folks that keep getting brought up. Last I checked this forum is titled GEAR.

"GEAR talk. Everything GEAR. All about GEAR. Ultralight backpacking gear. Lightweight backpacking gear. Hiking gear. Anything GEAR. Gear that sucks, gear that works, gear that's cheap, gear that's cool, gear that's overrated by lying manufacturers, gear that's only available from a side street Spanish market, gear that breaks, gear that's multi-use, gear that can be Googled, GEAR GEAR GEAR GEAR GEAR. Now go. Talk 'some gear"

But....since it was brought up. Yes, Aron and ED are obviously qualified, they are also featured on the manufactures website with regard to the pack, while also being active on several forums for the same reasons. No one else, well at least not for 3 months, can vouch. So in the mean time, yes its just claims, beliefs and skepticism. Why is it when skepticism and objectivity are brought to bare on certain subjects, in a place titled GEAR, it automatically becomes a discussion about people? :-0

I also wanted to repeat, reader digest style, what I've said before. Its Silnylon, I challenge the strength claim, I have the educated opinion that wood stays could be an issue wrt pack rafting and other situations, This pack will last a life time for some people. The marketing is hyped like good hip hop. I think that sums it up.

"Why is it when skepticism and objectivity are brought to bare on certain subjects, in a place titled GEAR, it automatically becomes a discussion about people?"

Because it's people that use the gear!

It doesn't use itself and the proof is in the pudding - i.e. how it works for people.

Agreed and the comments were not so much about people, per se, as they were about the behaviour of some here, whose objectivity is rather questionable, in light of their own activities on other forums...some of us have long and accurate memories, 'nuff said.

Josh,

Oh, but the people part does matter. Most gear is pretty great on the drawing board or sitting on the shelf or even pictured as a prototype on a website. As Vernon says, it's when it gets used by people that you find out whether it's any good or not. More importantly, it really depends on the people reviewing it as to whether their review is of value. Your "impartial" review of something you haven't even held, much less used saying it's over hyped BS seems of less value than those of Ed T or Aron who have not only put the thing through some pretty tough paces but have extensive experience with many other top flight packs. I'm not in the market for one of these myself, so it doesn't much matter to me personally whether they work or not, but I can definitely see why some would really want one. I can see why you wouldn't want someone to though.

And since you requested focus on GEAR, the other irony I'm seeing here is the durability issue. This is Backpacking Light, correct? Based on most of my reading here, the mantra is that it's okay to sacrifice durability in order to lose weight. As long as folks know what they're doing and take care of their stuff, weight savings is the ultimate goal. You make it sound like the thing is made out of tissue paper and not up to UL durability standards. However, I guess the ultimate in durability from a manufacturer's standpoint is to have no bag whatsoever to rip or tear. I just hope no one uses (shudder) sil-nylon stuff sacks to hold their gear on your pack board.

nm. I don't know enough about all the history behind this squabble.

Edited by Kat_P on 12/22/2010 12:12:17 MST.