Companion forum thread to:

Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter / Expedition Pack Review

"Ultralight backpackers have developed an unquenchable fetish for packs that are measured in ounces, seemingly with no regard at all to what the pack has offered with respect to durability, comfort, or aesthetic design."

Blanket statements are never good. I will be waiting to see how well this pack does. As I am in the market for a larger pack.

Good catch, Ken :)

Those packs look good. If ya'll could post up the dimensions (depth, width, height) I'd appreciate it. Those give me a better sense of size than cubic inches.

I am loving my Porter!

Under 'Specifications'
BPL Calculated Volume: TBD

Under 'Similar Packs'
BPL Measured Volume: 3400 cu in (55 L)

Has the volume been measured or not? This is one of the things I've been wondering about regarding these packs.

Height: ~39 inches (bottom of lumbar/belt to bottom of velcro)
Circumference: ~33 inches
Width: ~10.75 inches (across back panel)
Depth: ~5.75 inches (across a side at top compression strap)

FWIW, the pack is tapered (wider at top).

Gabe, re your question: "Has the volume been measured or not?"

From the article, below the table containing the data categories you cite:

"During this review period, we'll be publishing data that justifies the performance of this pack, and filling in the table above."

I emailed Hyperlite about their Expedition pack and was very much dismayed it does not come, nor can it be ordered, to include load lifters. I dislike having any weight of the pack on my shoulders and depend on load lifters to keep the weight off my shoulders. I want the weight carried by the frame attached to the belt plus a small amount by the Chest Sternum (about 2-3 percent of the weight).

Thanks Chris. I'm assuming those are the Porter dimensions. Quite narrow at less than 6 inches deep. Presumably that Expedition is fatter in this respect.

Can I have too many packs. No, I cannot.

Hi Roleigh - a quick call to Mike @HMG might help.

Regarding the load lifters - the should harness attaches at the top of the stays so one would simply order the pack with slightly longer stays that sit slightly above the shoulder crest. This is the same way that one would order a Mchale using the simple (not the P&G) harness.

Dave - yeah, that's for my Porter. I'd have to measure again, but I'm pretty sure it gets larger as you travel up the extension collar. Of course it's hard to measure a width/depth there since it has no structure. They are definitely built in a more narrow but tall profile though.

IMO - load lifters would be useless with this design, because as David Ure mentioned the straps attach to the top of the pack and the stays extend to that point. Load lifters would require a taller back panel so that the shoulder straps attach a few inches below the top of the pack. Then the load lifters could extend to the top of the pack with the stays. As-is, I've had no problems with transferring weight fully to the hip belt. With that said, I haven't carried as much weight in mine as Ryan has.

Edited by simplespirit on 01/11/2012 10:58:46 MST.

The tone of the preface sure sounds snarky. The passive-aggressive slant detracts from the article's objectivity.

Is the volume spec overstated?
5.75 x 10.75 x 39 = 2410 cubic inches to the very top of the rolltop closure, and of course the height of the pack once closed would be significantly less than 39 inches. Realizing of course that when loaded it won't be a perfect square dimension etc but I don't see how the pack can hold 3400 cubic inches per the manufacturer's spec.

I'm wondering if Chris's pack varies significantly from production packs? I thought Chris and Ryan had prototype packs.

Edited by dag4643 on 01/11/2012 11:03:36 MST.

Daniel, I have a production model and that's not really how you calculate pack volume from dimensions. That would assume the pack is a perfect rectangle, which it's not. Even the method below is rough since these packs taper.

My 39 inch measurement would allow the pack to be closed, but not rolled down.

Anyway, the circumference of my pack is 33 inches. Using that in combination with the 39 inch height....

The cross-sectional area for a circumference of 33 inches is 87 inches. When you multiply that by the height you get a volume of 3393 cubic inches. That's pretty close IMO, but is definitely a rough way to do it.

Dan McHale's site gives a good breakdown on estimating this way.

Edited by simplespirit on 01/11/2012 11:12:10 MST.

I agree with James. The preface seemed a little weird. Folk only carry UL packs to score points?
Really?
I carry mine for comfort.

I'm pretty sure it says "some". :-)

This could prove to be interesting though, seeing how people interpret the language differently.

Edited by simplespirit on 01/11/2012 11:25:19 MST.

Chris,

Thanks for the clarification re volume.

By the way, did not see it in the article (or missed it), but I asked HMG about accessories (hipbelt pockets/side pockets/front pocket etc) and they indicate they will be making them early in 2012 for attachment to the pack (for those who don't want to make their own).

Edited by dag4643 on 01/11/2012 11:42:00 MST.

Thanks for adding that Daniel. I thought I had put it in there, but apparently I missed it. I've gotten the same information from Mike @ HMG about accessories, although I didn't get a timeline.

I'm interested to see what they come out with myself. The attachment method for my MYOG hip pockets required modifying the belt, but they're very stable and HUGE. An Oly XZ-1 fits with plenty of room left for snacks and some other small items.

Edited by simplespirit on 01/11/2012 11:34:59 MST.

Sure seems like a strange preface for an UL Backpcking site.

"Some ultralight backpackers have developed an unquenchable fetish for packs that are measured in ounces, seemingly with no regard at all to what the pack has offered with respect to durability, comfort, or aesthetic design.

Small manufacturers continue to feed this small market. The market for such packs may exist for several reasons. Perhaps some customers are overly simplistic about their gear requirements, and they only desire to meet some arbitrary weight specification. Perhaps some customers lack sufficient education and experience about lightweight backpacking and assume that lighter is always better. Others might be living out their narcissistic tendencies (c'mon, you know we all have them) on the internet by drawing attention to our gear lists and the latest and greatest gear that they own and you don't. Maybe some hikers just don't carry that much weight - ever - and thus never have an opportunity to tax their backpack. Regardless, a market for "SUL" gear remains, however small or large it is."

It actually comes across as quite insulting to members on here who use UL packs.

Edited by MikefaeDundee on 01/11/2012 11:33:50 MST.