New HMG 'Mini' Porter Pack
Display Avatars Sort By:
Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
New HMG 'Mini' Porter Pack on 11/14/2012 15:52:10 MST Print View

http://www.hyperlitemountaingear.com/packs/2400-series/hmg-porter-pack.html

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Interesting on 11/14/2012 22:02:02 MST Print View

Looks interesting but my thought is "why?" In my opinion the regular Porter was a great size and with the three compression straps it could compress down nicely. I just don't see why you'd want to buy the mini porter when it doesn't save much weight and it can't be stuffed full for the occasional winter trip.

On the other hand I could see a few people liking this. People with SUL type gear but spine problems might like a smaller pack with more support. People packing a lot of water in the desert might light a small but supportive pack too.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Interesting on 11/15/2012 13:45:27 MST Print View

The biggest difference between these two packs is the extension collar on the regular Porter, which isn't always needed. The 2400 cube rating is for the main bag so it is still a decent sized UL pack. At 26oz, with a stiff frame and functionally rainproof, this has much more appeal to me than say a ULA Ohm for off trail excursions.

Since when is saving 5 oz not important....

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re Re Interesting on 11/15/2012 15:27:44 MST Print View

Well if the main difference is the extension collar that's not too bad. Looks like they also took off the bottom compression strap which probably isn't needed on such a small pack. Definitely both Porters are impressive packs.
A pack that is 26 or 30 oz and can carry weight that well is a pretty impressive thing.

Aaron Croft
(aaronufl) - M

Locale: Alaska
Wow on 11/15/2012 16:31:55 MST Print View

Looking at it a little more closely, it is only 20 bucks cheaper and 5 oz lighter. I think for the majority of people, the regular Porter would be a better option.

Their packs are really intriguing, but I just can't justify spending that much on a pack that comes with no accessories.

Edited by aaronufl on 11/15/2012 16:34:57 MST.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Interesting on 11/15/2012 16:38:30 MST Print View

"At 26oz, with a stiff frame and functionally rainproof, this has much more appeal to me than say a ULA Ohm for off trail excursions."

After having used an OHM off trail for several years now, I can say with confidence that is does just fine, in terms of performance on rough terrain and durability. I moved to an OHM 2.0 this year and was delighted with its performance on a section of the SHR. It weighs 23.0 oz, stripped of all the optional bells and whistles, but including spacious hip belt pockets(Circuit hip belt) and the best side pockets I have ever found, on any pack. It also has a durable Cordura bottom, which stood up to some fairly serious abuse, as did the Dyneema fabric of the pack body. This is not to "diss" the Mini Porter, which I am sure is a fine pack, but to propose that the OHM does not suffer by comparison, at least not as far as I can tell. The main advantage of the Mini Porter seems to be in its near waterproofness, which the OHM definitely lacks. Maybe it boils down to the environment one packs in and personal preference as to features? Does anybody know how much the Mini weighs with hipbelt pockets and side pockets, to make an equivalent feature weight comparison?

Clayton Mauritzen
(GlacierRambler) - F - M

Locale: NW Montana
Re:Dimensions on 11/15/2012 16:45:32 MST Print View

David, are you saying that the dimensions are largely the same except for the height of the extension collar? Admittedly, the Porter collar is quite tall, but that seems like a lot of weight to save by shortening it and then cutting out a compression strap.

Given how HMG makes their stuff in-shop, I think it's a great move to offer more options like this. I think I still prefer the original Porter. But I can totally see how someone who doesn't need that kind of volume would prefer to save the 5 ounces, especially in burly areas where a waterproof pack is essential.

Clayton Mauritzen
(GlacierRambler) - F - M

Locale: NW Montana
Re: Pockets on 11/15/2012 16:49:56 MST Print View

These Zimmerbuilt pockets weigh 1.5 ounces each, and they look fairly spacious. They aren't Ohm spacious, but they still look nice.

Edited by GlacierRambler on 11/15/2012 16:50:39 MST.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Pockets on 11/15/2012 17:03:57 MST Print View

"They aren't Ohm spacious, but they still look nice."

Agreed, but now the weight is up to 29 oz, with no hipbelt pockets.

Aaron Croft
(aaronufl) - M

Locale: Alaska
Re: Re: Re: Pockets on 11/15/2012 17:10:45 MST Print View

And then the front stuff-it pocket adds another 4.2 ounces, if you want it. Not sure how much the hip belt pockets weigh?

I think the moral of the story here is that every pack (and piece of gear, for that matter) requires compromises, and the HMG packs are no exception. If waterproofness was important to me, the pack would be high on my list.

Edited by aaronufl on 11/15/2012 17:13:13 MST.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pockets on 11/15/2012 17:15:22 MST Print View

"I think the moral of the story here is that every pack (and piece of gear, for that matter) requires compromises, and the HMG packs are no exception. If waterproofness was important to me, the pack would be high on my list."

+1

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Re: Re: Interesting on 11/15/2012 17:32:16 MST Print View

Sorry Tom. Having owned an Ohm and now a Porter, the Ohm has proven to me not nearly as durable off trail. The proprietary fabric used by HMG is much more abrasion resistant as well as tear resistant. The cordage used on the Ohm will catch every branch. No such issues with the Porter. The frame is stiffer on the Porter as well. The Ohm is a fine pack but not what I would consider a bombproof lightweight pack, which the Porter has proven.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Re: Re: Pockets on 11/15/2012 17:35:17 MST Print View

If you absolutely require external pockets for volume instead of the volume in the main bag, then the Windrider would be a consideration and still superior to the Ohm in every way. Carry better, rain proof, more durable, same accessories. No compromises in this case.

Aaron Croft
(aaronufl) - M

Locale: Alaska
Ohm vs Windrider on 11/15/2012 17:49:51 MST Print View

Not to derail the thread, but...

I find the Ohm Pockets superior to those used on the Windrider. In addition, I remember the Windrider suffering fairly significant torso collapse once it hit 25 lbs in the last SOTM report done by Will. So yes, there are compromises.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting on 11/15/2012 17:52:46 MST Print View

"Sorry Tom. Having owned an Ohm and now a Porter, the Ohm has proven to me not nearly as durable off trail. The proprietary fabric used by HMG is much more abrasion resistant as well as tear resistant. The cordage used on the Ohm will catch every branch. No such issues with the Porter. The frame is stiffer on the Porter as well. The Ohm is a fine pack but not what I would consider a bombproof lightweight pack, which the Porter has proven."

I guess I'd chalk it up to different environments, David, or maybe a different way of moving thru rough terrain. I have had no durability problems with my OHM's whatsoever in 4 years of hard use, other than one small tear in the kangaroo pocket on my first one. One environmental difference that occurs to me is that the Sierra is much more open than I imagine your Canadian arboreal terrain to be, although I have not had any issues with cordage(compression lines) hanging up on branches or fabric tearing other than the one I mentioned above, either in the Sierra or the Cascades when I have encountered that type of terrain. That said, I have no way of comparing, since I have not owned a Porter, but the OHM has proven plenty durable enough for any packing conditions I have encountered. If I were doing most of my packing in very rainy conditions, or wanted to carry loads over, say, 27-28 pounds, I would definitely consider a Porter. But for my typical load and climate, the OHM 2.0, which is $60 cheaper and a minimum of 3 oz lighter if you don't include side/hipbelt pockets, is a better deal.

Clayton Mauritzen
(GlacierRambler) - F - M

Locale: NW Montana
Re: Ohm vs Windrider on 11/15/2012 17:52:59 MST Print View

I seem to remember that HMG changed the stays since then. Is that right?

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Ohm vs Windrider on 11/15/2012 17:53:23 MST Print View

That was with the previous, first generation straight thin stays. At the time, this was essentially a frameless pack. Last year, the Windrider adopted the stiff shaped stays of the Porter and the pack will carry well over 30 lbs without significant torso collapse. Compromise averted!


Edit: Clayton beat me to it.

Tom, indeed. Different environments. Cheers.

Edited by FamilyGuy on 11/15/2012 17:55:03 MST.

Clayton Mauritzen
(GlacierRambler) - F - M

Locale: NW Montana
Re: Re: Re: Pockets on 11/15/2012 17:57:33 MST Print View

Tom, you can get hipbelt pockets on the Porter for an extra $10. And it's 28 oz with the Zimmerbuilt ones, but who's counting?

Honestly, I really enjoyed the Ohm 2.0 that I had tried out this summer. Had it fit me better, I would have kept it in a heartbeat. I still have yet to find side pockets equal to those on the Ohm.

However, fit and carry trump everything for me (and are intimately related). That is something I simply cannot compromise on. Everything else can be adjusted.

Aaron Croft
(aaronufl) - M

Locale: Alaska
Stays on 11/15/2012 17:57:59 MST Print View

I stand corrected - I'm glad to see that they change the stays.

All things considered, for the conditions I backpack in, and for my uses, I find my Ohm 2.0 to suit my needs better than the HMG packs.

And the Ohm is quite a bit cheaper, especially when you add in accessories. Price-related compromise averted. ;)

Edited by aaronufl on 11/15/2012 18:00:11 MST.

Robert H
(roberth)
Re: Stays on 11/15/2012 18:01:03 MST Print View

>All things considered, for the conditions I backpack in, and for my uses, I find my Ohm 2.0 to suit my needs better than the HMG packs.

Having never used a HMG pack right? ;)