Forum Index » GEAR » ULA Ohm 2.0 Pictures


Display Avatars Sort By:
Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: hipbelt on 10/18/2011 22:42:33 MDT Print View

"It is intended to be used with a CCF pad folded against the backpanel for additional support. Read the info on the ULA website if you dont understand."

Where does it say this on the website? I never used a pad with my Ohm and easily carried 25lbs in comfort (I have a Mchale LBP34 for comparison and the OHM did a great job without a CCF pad).

"The regular OHM is good because the stay connects to hip belt wings. There will be more sagging without that definitely as there will be more relative movement between the center of the pack back and hipbelt. "

Incorrect. The Circuit has the same 'floating hipbelt' and has no such 'sagging' issues that you mention. The belt on the OHM 2.0 has straps to suck the lumbar pad into the lower back and 'connect' the suspension to the belt (see picture on ULA website for Circuit).

The Circuit does NOT need the stay for any weights below 30lbs. There just isn't enough torso collapse to require it.

Regardless, most of you are not the focus for the 2.0. Stick to the 1.0 and you will be happy (misinformed, but happy).

Stephen Barber
(grampa) - MLife

Locale: SoCal
Testing the Ohm 2.0 on 10/19/2011 12:18:33 MDT Print View

This morning I loaded up the Ohm 2.0 with 30 lbs (weighed) (max recommended weight) and took it for a walk up and down hills, just to see if things were as bad as some folks seem to think they might be! (Sarcasm!)

It was comfortable. Weight transfer to hips was excellent. No feeling of excess pressure on the lower back under the hipbelt. No movement of the belt upwards under 30 lbs.

Now frankly, it was not quite as comfortable with 30 lbs as my Catalyst is, but then I didn't expect it to be. I don't intend to do any trips with the Ohm with more than 20 or maybe 25 lbs - for me it's a 2 or 3 day pack. Week or more long trips will be with the Catalyst.

I really couldn't tell any difference in carry (with max weight) between the 2.0 and my old 1.0 (now sold).

I'll be interested to see some comments from other folks who actually have a 2.0.

Praveen M
(prav66) - MLife

Locale: Mid-Atlantic
Another Ohm 2.0 tester on 10/19/2011 15:09:28 MDT Print View

I was one of the many folks who complained to Chris about the Ohm belt even after the redesign last year... it's a shortie that feels way truncated and ends where it should be giving the most weight transfer on my hips. I imagine ladies with wide hips fare even worse with that thing. Ryan Jordan and others have written about the fool-hardiness of the LW cottage industry on skimping on hipbelts for their packs when you have a small baseweight but need to occasionally carry a lot of food/water.

I know lots of folks get on fine with the regular Ohm, but I can;t imagine how... I found it inadequate as is, making me envious of the belts on my GG Gorilla (a pack I like less than the Ohm in every other respect, hipbelts aside). Anyway... my timing of request was just as 2.0 was coming out. Chris sent me one as soon as they started selling them and I've been using it the past week.

Some thoughts :

1. I love the hipbelt design and am happy that it no longer digs uncomfortably into my hips when there is weight on it and I tighten it up. On the Ohm 2.0, it feels even more agile than on the beefier Circuit (which is overkill for me for most of my needs and doesn't compress as well). The fact that it is free to move/rotate with your hips means the pack stays straight as you move or dance around... a noticeable improvement in balance in my experience. Much more so than on the regular Ohm I hardly notice the pack and am no longer feeling the belt really straining with loads above 25lbs. In short it works.

2. Weight transfer has been superior to the regular Ohm for 30lbs weight going on weekender. I too wish that the suspension is connected directly to the belt like the previous Ohm for maximum load transfer but the much more robust coverage of the new belt MORE than makes up for this loss. YVMV but for me the difference is obvious and preferable. Someday we may have someone make a pack in the sub 2lb weight category that is a true load hauler but right now the Ohm is meeting my needs.

If folks are looking at the pack to use between 25 & 30lbs loads (e.g. southwest hiking where lots of water is needed on stretches or for long hikes where food weight adds up), I'd take the Ohm 2.0 any day over the original. The ~4oz increase in weight is a pittance for the improved comfort walking all day, slash the weight of your gear elsewhere.

For true UL loads, I still prefer my 2008 ULA Conduit which has less stiff shoulder straps and a beefier hipbelt than the regular Ohm.

P.S. : The perfect pack for me would combine the regular features of the Ohm, the roll-top and hipbelts of the old Conduit (which were long enough), a stiff aluminum hoop curved to the back (like what SMD uses) but connected directly to the hipbelts for maximum load transfer, a light mesh at the back for ventilation (like Osprey packs) and still weight <2lbs. Anyone want to make one?

- PM

M B
(livingontheroad) - M
Re: Re: hipbelt on 10/19/2011 20:02:04 MDT Print View

from the FAQ:

Q: How do I use my sleeping pad in conjunction with the Ohm? What pads work the best?

A: Just about any lightweight pad (foam or inflatable) will work as a 'frame' inside the Ohm. 3/4 and full length pads that can be folded (as opposed to rolled) work the best. If you are using an inflatable mattress, deflate, then fold it into 1/3's or 1/5's before inserting.


I have a circuit too, and I have used it in every possible configuration, no stays, carbon fiber stays, all stays, no CCF pad, with CCF pad, and combinations therein. I judge what supports the weight the best, and when it starts to drop onto shoulders and cannot keep angle on load lifters. Without a CCF pad, and without the Al stay, forget it. The carbon fiber stay alone doesnt work well past 15-20 lbs. There is plenty of sagging so that the top of the straps drops below top of shoulders, and load lifter angle is reduced to almost none with only 25 lbs.

The ohm is the same way.

From pictures Ive seen here, and on reviews, and blogs, theres a lot of folks who dont know how their pack should fit and be worn. Load lifter straps that are horizontal, shoulder straps that start below shoulder and wrap over, and hip belts worn low around hips or below, not across the crest. This is not the way the pack is supposed to be worn. That is the way many wear them because it is obviously not supporting the load properly, and most all the weight is riding on the shoulders.

In my experience, without a CCF pad inside, there is definitely way more sagging unless the Al stay is used too. The fabric alone is not rigid between the carbon fiber stays and the hipbelt velcro attachment. It is fairly rigid when the pack is packed with a CCF against the backpanel though. The hip belt stabilizers dont support anything, but if you look and they are angled downward to the rear, its because the pack is SAGGING

Edited by livingontheroad on 10/19/2011 20:05:53 MDT.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Re: Re: hipbelt on 10/19/2011 20:43:27 MDT Print View

I found the carbon fiber frame excellent to about 26 pounds before any measurable torso collapse. Honestly, at 15-20 pounds I don't even feel the load. I think this is just a situation of having sensitive shoulders (or back).

Your experience is with the OHM 1.0 and not the 2.0. Given the 2.0 is an internal framed pack now, the stabilizers definitely help. As evidenced by the two previous posts provided by those that have used both versions, you can see that the 2.0 does an effective job at transferring load. The hip stabilizers lock the belt against the internal frame so yes, they optimize load transfer.

Mike M
(mtwarden) - MLife

Locale: Montana
ccf pad on 10/19/2011 20:49:50 MDT Print View

I replaced the "standard" ULA pad w/ an identical cut section of a ridgerest, I found it to be stiffer (and more comfy) than the "standard" pad and just a fraction heavier- it also makes for a nice sit/kneel pad

Photobucket

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: ccf pad on 10/19/2011 20:51:34 MDT Print View

" replaced the "standard" ULA pad w/ an identical cut section of a ridgerest,"

Now that is a stroke of genius. I'm all over that one, Mike!

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: ccf pad on 10/19/2011 20:56:25 MDT Print View

"replaced the "standard" ULA pad w/ an identical cut section of a ridgerest, I found it to be stiffer (and more comfy) than the "standard" pad and just a fraction heavier- it also makes for a nice sit/kneel pad"
+1, no regrets.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: ULA Ohm 2.0 Pictures on 10/20/2011 10:30:30 MDT Print View

Video of the new 2.0 Ohm here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhWer3TGHZk&feature=youtu.be

Damn thing looks very comfy!

Mike M
(mtwarden) - MLife

Locale: Montana
wife on 10/20/2011 12:42:47 MDT Print View

I can see my wife being interested in this pack, she prefers a more substantial belt- also the ability to adjust torso length would be a plus for her as well

Eric Blumensaadt
(Danepacker) - MLife

Locale: Mojave Desert
ULA hipbelt on 10/20/2011 12:58:30 MDT Print View

David is correct, the hipbelt doesn't need to be "attatched" to the frame stays as long as the hipbelt is well attatched to the pack and is stiff enough to do its job without collapsing or folding.

As an example: I put pre-curved, flat aluminum stays in my 3,000 cu. in. Camelbak ski pack, attatched it with bolts thru holes melted through the fabric and the flimsy framesheet.

Then I cut off the unpadded fabric belt and replaced it with a padded REI Ridgeline hipbelt slid behind the pack's lumbar pad. Weight is now transferred very well to the hipbelt. The tight fit (& bar tacking reinforcement) of the lumbar pad and hipbelt handle the weight transfer.

Sumi Wada
(DetroitTigerFan) - F

Locale: Ann Arbor
Would've worked for me! on 10/20/2011 13:07:14 MDT Print View

I bought a Circuit early in the year and had a hard time choosing between the Circuit and the Ohm. Had them both at my house and went back and forth for days. Liked the Ohm "bag" better but preferred the Circuit's hipbelt. I don't know if the Ohm's hipbelt fits other women but it wasn't comfortable on me.

So, for me, the Ohm 2.0 would have been the PERFECT solution.

chris mcMaster
(ulachris) - F
Ohm 2.0 on 10/21/2011 10:38:20 MDT Print View

The back panel is 210 ripstop,it is to save weight in an area where we never (well, almost never) see damage. The frame is now installed just like the Circuit's inside a sleeve, and the hipbelt stabillzing straps connect directly to the sleeve so there is maximum transfer. There for sure was more direct transfer with the original system, but our testing and feedback we've had is showing that the large belt more than makes up for it.

kevperro .
(kevperro) - F

Locale: Washington State
Ohm 2.0 on 11/27/2011 11:03:45 MST Print View

I love the new design Chris. I was considering the Ohm last year and the one thing that I didn't want to give up was my hipbelt with the bigger pockets.

This now fits my needs perfectly. Most of my hiking is 3-4 day events and the load hauling capacity of my Catalyst is overkill. This would shave off over a pound from my carry weight and provide me an extra pack for my son who is growing into a full-sized pack (he can carry my Catalyst since he has the younger legs).

Jason H
(i2ambler) - F
Front pocket? on 07/06/2012 10:27:59 MDT Print View

I just got my Ohm 2.0 and notice that the front pocket is not hemmed at the top - its just folded over. That seems really weird - Is this how it is supposed to be?

Never mind - just checked out some other photos/video of it and noticed that is just the way it is. no biggie!

Edited by i2ambler on 07/06/2012 10:34:04 MDT.

Eugene Smith
(Eugeneius) - MLife

Locale: Nuevo Mexico
Re: Front pocket? on 07/06/2012 10:34:43 MDT Print View

"I just got my Ohm 2.0 and notice that the front pocket is not hemmed at the top - its just folded over. That seems really weird - Is this how it is supposed to be?"

Yes.