"Sub 2 lb 3400 cubed pack..."

Aw jeez, not those gram-counting spreadsheet fetishists again! :)

I wonder which category this UL pack, pictured on the cover of this conspicuously familiar book, falls under, hmmmm.....

Edited by Ebinder on 01/11/2012 13:29:01 MST.

"Some people like a review/article/story with edge/flair/personality, some don't."
Flair and personality, I like; edge I can do with out in a review.
Douglas was spot on, in my opinion.

Constructive suggestion:

Perhaps these reviews should include "cost" as a significant concern in the quest for gear that innovatively meets other criteria for lightweight backpacking?

(Drift deleted.)

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/11/2012 20:54:33 MST.

Hilarious James.

;)

Ryan is testing water absorption rates and dry times, but I've seen some prelim numbers that indicate lower absorption and a faster dry rate than other UL packs in the two pound range.

Abrasion resistance testing on mine has been limited to dragging it across/over/through talus fields in MT. I've also squeezed through some tight spots under tree cover, but nothing too serious (no briars, etc.). So far I have no signs of wear. We've been given limited details on the fabric composition since it's proprietary to HMG. All I know is that it's a laminate of lightweight nylon (I'd guess 210d) and a custom version of Cuben that uses both a heavier/thicker Dyneema fiber as well as a heavier/thicker membrane.

My flotation experience has been limited to a Windrider and a less than graceful attempt at crossing a snow-covered log in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. I went to cross it in snowshoes and fell in a creek. My legs wound up draped over the log and my torso should've been in the water. My Windrider was airtight enough and had enough flotation to keep me from going under so only my arms and torso got wet (my head stayed out). When I made it to camp I only found a few drops of water in the bottom of the pack. Not an exact test, but the Porter and Expedition are taped in a lot of areas and the Windrider isn't taped at all. Not sure if that gives you what you really want or not, but that's my experience.

The idea behind the "rolling review" is for us to be able to get a first impression out fast, follow that up with objective data (in this case ATSM volume, water absorption and dry times, etc.), and then finally with a conclusion and rating based on a fair test time. This review doesn't fit entirely because we've had prototypes to test and have been able to make some subjective impressions (or conclusions) already. However, changes have been made with each revision and we have only had limited time to test a production version. As unlikely as it may be, impressions (and conclusions) might change.

On your pack idea - Colin Ibbotson built something almost identical to what you're describing and called it the Skins Pack. He was going to bring it to market, but ultimately decided he'd rather be out exploring than running a pack business.

Edited by simplespirit on 01/11/2012 13:44:37 MST.

Great point Eric. That photo encapsulates why this article's language is irritating. In other news, Joaquin Guzman has denounced the horrible illegal drug trade in North America.

From the preface:

"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..."

You gotta watch out for those narcissists who draw internet attention to gear lists:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=1435

I will be interested to see just how much demand there is from the UL community for a mid sized pack (55L) that can potentially carry 40 plus pounds. It's always good to have options though and I am pleased to see more packs coming onto the market.

Richard's pack idea- maybe a new thread would have been better for both your ideas-
Chris sorry for the thread drift.

That idea has been tried a number of times without much success (I owned 3 different packs with this design)
Dana Gleason as far as I know put it in production first, and Kelty sold a 3 size system called the Mystery-Ranch series and Mystery Ranch still has some in production. None of these fit the lightweight category definitely not UL.
In UL packs The Arctic 1000 gave a few options but it is no longer produced.

A new thread should be started if more discussion on this is wanted.

Back to the regularly schedule programming

"Perhaps some customers are overly simplistic about their gear requirements..."

Tad, Before Dana was Dana McHale Packs was making a modular system in 1987;

http://www.mchalepacks.com/ultralight/Detail%20Hi%20Rez%20Pages/Modular%20Alpineer%201987.htm

&

http://www.mchalepacks.com/ultralight/Detail%20Hi%20Rez%20Pages/Modular%20Alpineer%201987%20pg%202.htm

Edited by wildlife on 01/11/2012 17:04:50 MST.

What if Backpacker Magazine published a review of a 2lb. pack made by a major manufacturer and started the review with the same preface...

I suspect we'd have a crapstorm of insult and injury raging on the forums right now. Lines would be drawn in the sand, boycotts declared, and legions of the Most Faithful of UL Acolytes would be beating their shields and demanding Jonathan Dorn's blaspheming head on a stake.

Could it be that such heresy could come from the same site that held us like babes and spoon fed us the UL gospel in the days of old?

The End Times are upon us.











But besides the preface, I didn't read it. Don't want or need a new pack :)

I guess the first modular packing system was the old Alice packs from the 1970's. Yuk.

Dan, do you still make those types of packs - i.e. with just the frame and modular pack bags that you can add?

Edited by FamilyGuy on 01/11/2012 17:02:45 MST.

Dan,

For that 1987 McHale Packs Modular Alpineer, do you recall the price (in 1987 dollars), weight, and main pack capacity?

(This station break brought to you by #occupy_thread_briefly. Returning now to regularly scheduled programming :>) ).

The system was meant to be able to carry whatever rucksack you wanted to put on there. In the photos the packs are about 3,000 cubes. The top pack with the single attaching lid, the one sitting next to the carrier frame, is the old summit sack, an internal frame pack that weighed 1.5 lbs with the stays.

The carrier was heavier of course, probably about 3 to 4 lbs. The cost for the carrier in 1987 might have been about $300.00

Edited by wildlife on 01/11/2012 17:27:46 MST.

Chris,

Thanks for the reference to Colin's Skin Pack, which led me to the following thread providing good descriptions of the pack, including great photos at p3:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=31682

And Dan, thanks for the info. A much, much lighter frame would sure open new horizons for a lot of old SUL frameless packs!

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/11/2012 17:34:26 MST.

"Some people like a review/article/story with edge/flair/personality, some don't."

Good point, Chris. While I think Doug made some excellent points in his post above, I have been watching the general reaction to several of Ryan's recent, perhaps controversial, comments, including the one that began the review, with dismay. It seems to me that a lot of folks are just waiting to jump down his throat at the slightest provocation, instead of bypassing the parts that irritate them and concentrating on the meat of his posts. He's a bright guy with a lot of experience and insights that he is trying to share, not always in the most sensitive way, but what does that matter in the ultimate scheme of things? What I fear is that he will give up in disgust and retreat back into the silence that so many of you were b!tching about until he started posting again. That would be a significant loss to the community, IMO. To all of you who are so roundly offended, I would say this: If you are confident in your gear selection ability and satisfied with the results in the field, what does it matter how Ryan phrases his comments? Let it slide and take what nuggets you can from the content. He might just come up with something you haven't thought of, in which case the rought edges of his prose are a small price to pay. If not, why not just let it go? Nobody's perfect and, in any case, there are people on this site with far less to offer who post using far more offensive language than RJ. Maybe save some of your indignation for them? Personally, I am looking forward to the new format and the large amount of useful information it promises to contain, and I could care less if RJ doesn't come off like William Jennings Bryan.

To paraphrase Roman Dial: We post our insecurities.

Edited for content.

Edited by ouzel on 01/11/2012 17:37:05 MST.

Well said, Tom.

+1 Well said Tom

I haven't always agreed with what Ryan Jordan says about gear but sometimes I come back around to his point of view after other things don't work quit so well. He's put in a lot of miles and tried a lot of gear so when he writes something (wish he'd do it more) I pay attention.