I started informational threads on both of these a few months ago. Since then I've been able to use each enough to get a feel for them (i.e. pushed the weight and capacity pretty far). Full details will end up in a to-be-written article discussing packs in depth. What follows is primarily meant to serve as a quick tool for folks considering buying one or the other.

Golite thread: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=59928&disable_pagination=1

Thruway thread: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=59678&disable_pagination=1


The Thruway has a lot going for it, but isn't quite a coherent package. My hope is the MH redesigns it a fair bit for next season, as with a few substantial tweaks it could be very competitive for several different user groups.

The materials are well chosen, and the pocket layout works well and is very versatile. The side pockets are easy to get at with the pack on, yet secure. The rear beavertail pocket would be much more useful if it were cut a few inches wider than the section of the pack it is meant to cover. As is they're the same, and getting something like snowshoes into the beavertail when the pack is full is not as easy as it quite frankly should be. The shoulder straps are excellent: the fit is ideal for me, and the foam is an ideal blend of supportive and cushy. The thin hipbelt gets the job done, but having the weight of a 1.5" buckle, lumbar pad, and velcro (to allow for hipbelt swaps) seems silly for a belt with such modest support. Beyond 20 or so pounds the belt lacks structure and starts to sag where it connects with the pack. I acquired MHs alpine hipbelt, which is probably the best hipbelt I've ever used on any pack, but unless steps are taken to substantially stiffen the backpad of the Thruway the alpine belt is overkill and cannot be put to full use.

The removable bivvy pad is a good idea which, like the hipbelt, fails to live up to what it could do. The dense foam of the pad in my pack is a great supplement to a sleep system, but rather heavy for what function it provides. I cannot testify concerning the reportedly rather different (lighter) pad which shipped with retail packs. The real problem is with the way the pad interfaces with the pack. The outward opening sleeve creates some uncontained/supported space which allows the pad to sag and buckle. The placement of the top compression strap tends to exacerbate this (see the photo of me skiing in the thread, above). In short, I would not want to carry much over 20 pounds in the Thruway as it is stock, and while the good points of the pack are substantial, the cost and weight do not in my book make those benefits worthwhile.

With the alpine belt and a burly framesheet (pictured in the Jam thread), the Thruway will carry well over 30 pounds with ease. Redesigning the pad sleeve to provide more structure, and having a combo of half bivy pad and framesheet along with a belt like the alpine (maybe a bit lighter) would make the Thruway a highly modular unit which could carry weight well and strip for lighter trips easily. I'd like to see the pack go in that directions.

The Jam is mostly a known quantity, with a design, fit, and feature set which checks a lot of boxes for a lot of people. With GoLites new aggressive pricing, nothing else even comes close. By fixing a few oversights, the new Jam could be far and away the best yet.

I discussed my difficulty with the hipbelt in the aforementioned thread. There are two issues here: that the current padding is too extensive for narrow waisted folks, and that the 1.5" buckle is in my opinion an anachronism for pack waist belts. It's not necessary for strength, bulky, and the pull-out nature of traditional buckles seems less secure and adjustable. The padding could be shortened by 3-5 cm on each side and fit a wide range of people better, and the buckle should be smaller, and possibly have at least one side which pulls from the belt rather than from the buckle. Generally the 2012 belt doesn't so much carry more weight than the 2011, is just carries it a lot more comfortably. It hugs the hips really well and generally gets the job done.

The other annoying nit which is really just oversight and nothing more is that the top strap is just barely long enough to close when the pack is full. It should be a good foot longer, to flexibly accommodate lashing a foam mat (or anything else) atop the pack. I cut the stock strap off and sewed a new one on, but that shouldn't be necessary.

The new framepad is thinner and denser than the 2011 model, but I don't think that's a good thing. The new one doesn't seem to facilitate carry better than the old one, and is less comfy as part of a sleep system.

The 2012 shoulder straps are also substantially less padded than the 2011, which seems like a poor choice. I've found the 2012 ones adequate, even carrying 30+ pounds, but folks with more sensitive shoulders will have a big problem here. The 2011 straps were for me perfect, and I'd encourage GoLite to bring them back.

On the whole the Jam is for me an easy pack to carry and work out of. I find myself grabbing it a lot because it is so user friendly for so many different things. If Golite can keep refining the formula they should keep selling plenty of packs.

Got questions? Ask 'em.

Any future plans to mod either one?

The Thruway is pretty good as is. With the alpine belt and a framesheet my wife (who prefers almost no weight on her shoulders) likes it a lot.

The failure point on the Jam under heavy load right now is the frame. Very judicious packing can coax it above 30, but not by much. I've got a few ideas I'll be trying to see how much weight the belt will take before it becomes the failure point.

Hi Dave - I played around with the Jam 50 and 70 recently and concur with your perspective. However, I would add that the lack of padding on the shoulder straps is a bigger issue for me. Even at 20 lbs, they got 'old' very quickly after only 30 minutes of wear. I can see them becoming completely flat after not much use. I believe them to be so bad that they will be re-worked for next year.

I also was a bit frustrated with the length. The padded portion of the shoulder straps are quite short in the Large size and the buckle would likely produce some chaffing over a long day.

With respect to the frame, I found that a z-lite stiffens things up quite nicely. At least on par with say, a Vapor Trail.

Can't wait for Jam V.7.0 due in 2013. Hopefully they will get it right this time.

I took the new 70L Jam (size large) out for an overnight and here are my impressions compared to the 2009 Pinnacle (also in large):
1. I definitely don't like the new hipbelt sizing and part of the design. Like several others I'm not that fat (32" jeans normally), but the Jam can only go down to ~33" wingtip to wingtip (just under 36" total circumference with the buckles clicked) so I can't snug it as much as I want. The Pinnacle could go at least 2" smaller (I typically had another 1/2" I could shorten if needed). They also changed the way the belt attaches to the pack, I assume to help with ventilation. There may be benefits to the new design there, but it makes the wings more floppy so it's harder to keep from knocking my camera in the pocket when setting the pack down. That wasn't a problem for me with the Pinnacle.
2. I would also measure the torso length to be up to 1" shorter on the Jam. The large Pinnacle was 19" to center of belt while the Jam is close to 18".

The below points pretty much apply to the 50L also.
3. Hipbelt pockets seem close to the same size, but zippers are longer on the Jam.
4. Pocket mesh seems like it is not as sturdy - very similar in look and feel but thinner. Hipbelt mesh was also a different kind on the Pinnacle.
5. Sternum strap connection is different. I can't imagine anybody would purposely put that much force on it, but if it does come off somehow I don't see how you'd get it back on again.
6. Top strap on Jam is 7" shorter.
7. Jam has a different cordlock design for the main opening that requires you to use the actual lock and then 2 little straps to open the bag again.
8. The lower compression straps on the Jam cross over a corner of the side pockets thereby reducing their capacity and ease of use.
9. Jam foam framesheet is thinner but stiffer.
10. Shoulder strap foam is thinner, too. That didn't bother me with 24 pounds though the too-large hipbelt was giving me enough support.

Despite these "faults" (IMHO), you can't beat the price so I will likely give the Jam to my son who's wider than me and keep using my Pinnacle. Hopefully they redo the hipbelt sizing and compression strap issue.

Does anyone know if the waist belt is narrower on the medium size Jam 50L?

I have one of the new Jam 50's in size medium. It appears that the size medium's belt is about the same size that David described in his prior thread. I have a 32" waist and it fits me well but leaves maybe 2" of additional adjustment. I would have reservations about this pack if your waist size is under 32"

I'm writing up the final conclusions, so it's good timing to update on durability after lots of off-trail miles this summer.

The Thruway has held up very well. DX40 is a great bottom fabric. The bits on the sides of the beavertail are largely cosmetic. The mesh on the side pockets is awesome stuff. No holes, snags, or significant wear at all. The main body fabric held up just fine, too.

The material on the Jam did fine as well. The new mesh on the side and hipbelt pockets took a beating. They're all still functional, but the belt pockets aren't far off from needing some seam grip. IMO something which needs a redesign. I pulled the pack inside out the other day, and found a few tiny spots on the bottom where the PU coating was starting to delam. Better than the coating from last year, but far from inspiring.

I'd also like to reiterate that shock-cord and hook keepers for ice axes are stupid.