GoLite Quest and GoLite Odyssey Packs

Mini-review for the 2010 State of the Market Report on Internal Frame Backpacks.

Print Jump to Reader Comments

by Roger Caffin | 2010-09-28 00:00:00-06

GoLite is of course a very well-known brand by now, especially at the lighter end of the market. They started out with a focus on really lightweight gear, but as they grew in size, they expanded their scope towards the mass-market a bit. Fortunately the Quest and Odyssey packs are still very light and close to the leading edge. The Men's Odyssey is easily the largest pack tested in this trial.

There is a cute little gotcha with the GoLite packs. The bottoms of these packs can be cinched down with two small loops which the new owner may not see at first - and they seem to come already done up. So remember to undo these if you want the full volume! (Yes, I missed them at the start.) Or do them up if you want to reduce the volume near the end of a trip and all your food has been eaten. This is especially useful with the Odysseys.

The measured values for weight were very close to the published values, but the measured values for pack volume were consistently down near only 80% of the published values. It may be that they measured the volume of the large back pocket and the lid pocket when the main bag was empty - that would allow a lot more volume, although it would not be realistic in the field.

The fabric used in all these packs was interesting. It has the handle of a knitted fabric, but it is woven. One could perhaps describe it as a sort of 210 denier Oxford. According to GoLite, the fabrics used recycled nylon. Anyhow, there is a very solid coating on the inside surface, and the fabric does seem to slide across sticks and rocks quite well.

The target market for these packs seem to be the middle of the range. The packs are not exactly cheap and not as rugged as some others - although they are not down at the silnylon-strength by any means. I think they could cope with quite a wide range of uses by quite a wide range of walkers. The Odyssey might find a special use in winter travel, when you have to carry a bit more clothing and sleeping gear. It should cope with the extra volume just fine.

GoLite Quest Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Quest (M) Above average Tough and light
Quest (W) Above average Tough and light

The Quest is one of the lighter GoLite frame packs, and quite close to the leading edge of the cottage industry in terms of volume per weight - but it isn't all that 'light' in absolute terms. However, the extra weight has been put to good use in stronger fabrics and solid back padding, as shown here. The internal frame consists of a thin but very stiff sheet of plastic reinforced by two flat strips of aluminium. The strips come pre-curved, but the curve can easily be modified to suit. What was interesting was that the Men's and Women's models, as delivered, felt very different from each other. The bottom end of the Women's frame (in the lumbar region) was definitely more curved than the Men's. I found the Men's comfortable but the Women's less so; Sue found the reverse (as might be expected). The width of the padding meant that we both got sweaty backs - but the weather was hot at the time.

GoLite Quest and GoLite Odyssey Packs - 1
GoLite Quest (Men's), 1.42 kg (3.12 lb), 57 L (3500 cuin), Medium, Large.

GoLite Quest and GoLite Odyssey Packs - 2
GoLite Quest (Women's), 1.29 kg (2.84 lb), 53 L (3200 cuin), Medium, Large. *Note that a Women's Medium Quest is smaller than the Men's Medium - about that of a Men's Small (which does not exist). In detail, the length of the whole back of the harness is about 540 mm (21.25 in) on the Men's Medium and 500 mm (19.7 in) on the Women's, with the extra length on the Men's being split equally between the height of the hip belt and the rest of the back padding.

When the main bag is full, it tends to bulge into the otherwise large-looking back pocket. I was able to get sitmats and the like in there fairly easily, but nothing particularly lumpy. If the main bag volume is too much, you can cinch the bottom of the bag down: there are those two little straps underneath which seriously restrict the volume of the bottom section. As mentioned above, the claimed volumes for both Quests seemed a bit high compared to many other packs: I had trouble getting all the Test Gear into the main bag on the 62 L Women's model, but that was measured at just 53 L. Exactly why the discrepancy I do not know - unless they measured the volume of the back pocket and the lid pocket with the main bag empty.

The design features a conventional floating lid of adequate size. The back lid straps are anchored half-way down the body, which seems adequate for a range of packings. The lid pocket has the same bulge problem restricting its volume, but it works OK.

The hip belt wings are rather solid things and have pockets, but once the hip belt was curved around my hips there wasn't much room in the pockets. The tips of the shoulder straps on the Men's model were a bit lumpy on me at the start of testing: a small fault. Sue did not notice this problem however, so it may depend on exactly where the tips are on your body. The sternum straps (with that silly whistle) only just reached across me, but they were OK on Sue. The wings of the hip belt are sewn to the main bag, and do not always contact your hips at the corners where they are attached. However, that does not seem to matter.

I know they have separate Men's and Women's models, but apart from the different colour of the trim, the way the aluminium struts are pre-bent, and the obvious different meanings of 'Medium,' I could not see a huge difference between them. I would suggest the prime criterion during selection should be getting the right torso length for you regardless of 'pack gender.'

GoLite Odyssey Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Odyssey (M) Recommended For those who need VOLUME
Odyssey (W) Recommended For those who need VOLUME

The first thing to note about these packs is that they are big on volume (albeit less than claimed). In fact it was a bit of a gamble that this might be so which allowed us to included them in the survey. Both units tested are 'Medium,' but continuing in the established tradition, the Women's Medium is smaller than the Men's Medium, though they are still fairly large. Fortunately, like the Quest packs, these have those two nifty little cinch straps underneath the main bag for reducing its volume. In the photo to the right of the Men's pack in the field, I have the bottom of the pack in its normal or expanded configuration, but that was at the start of the trip with lots of food. In the photo at the top we were on our way back (food mostly eaten), and I had cinched up the bottom of the pack to reduce its volume and get the weight higher on my back.

GoLite Quest and GoLite Odyssey Packs - 3
GoLite Odyssey (Men's), 1.59 kg (3.51 lb) *, 49 L (3000 cuin), Medium, Large.

GoLite Quest and GoLite Odyssey Packs - 4
GoLite Odyssey (Women's), 1.42 kg (3.13 lb), 64 L (3900 cuin), Medium, Large. *Note that Women's Medium is about the size of a Men's Small (which does not exist). The length of the whole back of the harness is about 540 mm (21.25 in) on the Men's Medium and 500 mm (19.7 in) on the Women's, with the extra length on the Men's harness being split equally between the height of the hip belt and the rest of the back padding. This is the same as for the Quest.

For some of the models in this review Sue and I found we could carry the same pack despite a difference in our respective torso lengths of about 3.5 cm (1.5 in). However, in this case Sue found the Men's medium was just a bit too long for her, but the Women's Medium was fine. Our torso difference matches the difference in torso lengths on these packs.

It would be fair to say that the Odyssey is close to being an enlarged Quest. Sure, the back pocket is different, and the Odyssey has a zip at the bottom, around a significant bulge there to give you access into the bottom of the bag, but otherwise - they are quite similar. This is perfectly reasonable.

I have to say that the zip access into the bottom of the main bag strikes me as pretty useless however. If I pack the main bag from the top first there is no way I can get more than a few handkerchiefs into the bottom afterwards. Yes, if I unzip the bottom of the bag when I set up camp I can get at the stuff at the bottom first - but that's not of great value to me. In bad weather, I leave the stuff I've stored at the bottom of my pack safely down there until I get my pack into the tent.

I am normally in the habit of tying the tent on top of the sealed throat and holding it in place with a strap over the throat. Of course, the lid over the top does help restrain the tent as well. In this case I was not really confident that the single strap provided would be reliable enough, although that may be because the main bag was never really full. In the event I did carry the tent like that, and it stayed in place. The lid helped.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
  • Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
  • Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
  • Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.


Citation

"GoLite Quest and GoLite Odyssey Packs," by Roger Caffin. BackpackingLight.com (ISSN 1537-0364).
http://backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/golite_quest_golite_odyssey.html, 2010-09-28 00:00:00-06.

Print

Reader Comments

You must login to post comments.

New Visitors: Create a new account
Username:
Password:
Remember my login info.

Forum Index » Editor's Roundtable » Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 2: The Packs


Display Avatars
Sort By:
Dan Healy
(electricpanda)

Locale: Queensland
Measuring CoG effect on 09/30/2010 05:58:17 MDT Print View

Derek, absolutely agree that any backwards pull that causes you to use energy leaning into is not good… what we are trying to determine is in the overall context of carrying weight from one spot to another… is a 1% increase in the effective weight you carry going to trump other factors? Certainly 20% is getting important – but is this really the case?
In the rush to get lighter packs - so that on paper we carry a lighter load - maybe we have forgotten why it was that harnesses got better/heavier in the first place… perhaps in practise we feel more comfortable at the end of the day by using a better harness - albeit making it a heavier pack.

Derek Goffin
(Derekoak)

Locale: North of England
Measuring CoG effect on 09/30/2010 06:28:43 MDT Print View

I am totally with you that, for me, a comfortable carry is worth some packweight.
People are really used to leaning forward to balance their rucksack load. I suspect you were all leaning forward a little.
Some Macpack packs have diagonal straps that pull on the sides of the hip belt to pull the load into the back and reduce the strain on the shoulder straps to some extent. Whether that is as as good (from an energy point of view) as balancing the load completely, like Aarn front pockets can, is not clear.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Measuring CoG effect on 09/30/2010 15:50:35 MDT Print View

Hi Dan and Derek

Yes, I know those packs. It is an amusing thought that Au/NZ packs have such good harness systems because our local gear is otherwise so heavy ... need to think about that one for a while!

Yes, of course we all lean forward a bit for balance. Better that we lean from the ankle than from the waist though. Bad memories of the old A-frames ...

Now, those diagonal straps at the base on the Macpac etc - I think they are there to stop sideways sway. I do notice the improved ride when they are adjusted properly. Quite a few (most?) of the packs tested in this review also had them, so I don't think they are uncommon at all.

Cheers

Eric Blumensaadt
(Danepacker) - MLife

Locale: Mojave Desert
Very well sorted out on 09/30/2010 17:21:44 MDT Print View

Thanks Roger, for an excellent, understandable and in-depth series. The data is very helpful for ccomparisons and the photos of each pack were instructive. Must have taken you a lot of time to prepare these articles but really, where else could we go for such comprehensive and thorough information on this subject? Magazine reviews and even "Buyer's Guides" don't lay it out this well, all in one place.


As a result of these articles I am beginning to become a fan of the Lightwave series of packs, and especially their split hipbelts. I'll have to find a US vendor so I can try the largest one on with weight.

Used to be that the best packs mainly came from the US but that's not true anymore. Lots of great packs and innovative ideas from Britian, Europe, OZ and New Zealand.

Edited by Danepacker on 10/01/2010 12:02:43 MDT.

aarn tate
(aarndesign) - MLife
Forward lean and backward pull of the shoulder straps. on 10/01/2010 02:08:21 MDT Print View

All the comments about the importance of packing the weight close to your back are right- this does make a huge difference and validates my point about reducing load leverage. Also the point that leaning forward also reduces the pull back forces on the shoulders is also correct.
However the sports science research is very clear that the greater the forward lean, the more energy is required to carry a given weight and the more strain there is on the body. As the forward lean is the result of both the weight and the center of gravity of the load, it would be the most accurate way to determine the efficiency of the load carrying system. In the research they measure this by trunk angle. A photo is taken from the side and a line is drawn from the hip to the shoulder. The angle between this line and the horizontal is the trunk angle.
The research showed that when walking at 27 degrees downhill, on level ground and 20 degrees uphill, the increase in forward lean with an Aarn Bodypack was 8.2 degrees, 8.9 degrees and 8.2 degrees respectively, while for the traditional backpack, packed in the recommended way with the same gear, the forward lean was 17.3 degrees, 21.6 degrees, and 26.0 degrees respectively.
As a result, there was a smaller physiological cost (eg 6.4% less energy required when climbing uphill), smaller perturbations from normal gait patterns and better scores on a variety of subjective measures such as balance, stability and comfort with the Aarn Bodypack compared to the traditional Backpack. There was the elimination of pain/ discomfort in the shoulders, neck and thighs, and the virtual elimination in the back (loads of 22.5kg) with the Aarn Bodypack. The experience of pain/discomfort in these areas was experienced in an average of 40% of the experimental subjects with the traditional (internal frame) backpack.
I agree with Roger that comparing different backpacks on the basis of forward lean may not show significant differences if all were packed in the optimal way with the heavy items close to the back. But why not compare with an Aarn Bodypack?

David Chenault
(DaveC) - BPL Staff - F

Locale: Crown of the Continent
packspackpacks on 10/01/2010 22:28:41 MDT Print View

"Personally I say bugger all if you have good core strength"

I agree with Dan. Easier to buy a new pack, rather than get fit to carry the old one.

"Why not test v. an Aarn."

Probably because, your comments thus far to the contrary, we're not your marketing tool?

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Forward lean and backward pull of the shoulder straps. on 10/02/2010 04:43:27 MDT Print View

Hi Aarn

> for the traditional backpack, packed in the recommended way with the same gear,
> the forward lean was 17.3 degrees, 21.6 degrees, and 26.0 degrees respectively.

I haven't checked the research you are citing, but I strongly suspect that the 'traditional backpack' was an A-frame, or something similar. With one of those it is quite possible that someone could bend forward from the waist by that amount. Like, been there, done that, and suffered!

But there is NO WAY I lean forward that much when wearing my external frame pack. That amount of lean would leave me on my face on the ground. What lean I do is not confined to the trunk either: I lean forward from the ankles. My spine stays largely straight. That is how any experienced walker uses either an external frame pack or an internal frame pack.

0429 Standing up straight with pack on

What leaning forward from the ankles means is that the physiological cost is far smaller, the balance and stability are close to normal, and comfort is similar. Back pain? Don't experience it.

But I am quite happy to believe in all these problems with an A-frame style of pack!

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 10/02/2010 04:50:32 MDT.

Michael Davis
(mad777) - F

Locale: South Florida
Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: Part 2 on 10/04/2010 19:21:20 MDT Print View

Great article Roger!
Something I noticed in your comparisons, which I have often seen talked about elsewhere, is the volume to weight ratio.

I've never been impressed by this statistic because I can picture a 100 liter gunny sack made from the lightest weight cuben, tied up with a dyneema string, suspended from ones neck. Extreme, I know, but it illustrates my point. That configuration would get a "great" score.

The statistic that would impress me would be the weight carrying capacity vs. the weight of the backpack itself. A backpack, in order to have a high weight carrying capacity needs a sturdy frame and formidable suspension - however - those things add weight to the pack.

The ultimate pack would be capable of carrying 40 lbs but weigh only 4 ounces. Weight carrying capacity to weight of pack, I believe, is the challenge in making an "efficient" pack. Not the volume to weight ratio: that's too easy!

I fully realize that the weight carrying capacity is a subjective measurement, but, obviously from your article, so is a volume measurement. As long as the same person is rating the weight carrying capacity of a series of packs, like your excellent article could, the measurement could at least be "accurate" relative from one pack to another.

E J
(mountainwalker) - MLife

Locale: SF Bay Area & New England
great review; additional usable volume on the Exos on 10/04/2010 20:48:52 MDT Print View

Excellent thorough analysis and review Roger - much appreciated. And as usual I'm impressed with the wisdom BPL readers have added in comments.

I just wanted to add regarding the Exos - another BPL member pointed out to me in a PM conversation that the Exos has usable volume between the mesh back support and the pack bag - that member user packs this space to hold a water bladder and extra clothing - that's not a small amount of extra usable volume. That member added that this helps keep out snow in winter as well (to the BPL member who pointed this out - feel free to jump in and comment - it was a good point).

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Very well sorted out on 10/05/2010 04:47:04 MDT Print View

"As a result of these articles I am beginning to become a fan of the Lightwave series of packs, and especially their split hipbelts. I'll have to find a US vendor so I can try the largest one on with weight."

I'd support that - I've always been impressed by Crux. From 2001 to 2006 I travelled to London regularly and checked out the Crux packs and was suitably impressed. Lightwave came along later. Oddly, when I was living in London in 2006/2007 Lightwave was almost impossible to get my hands on - they seemed to have very limited dealers.

Martin RJ Carpenter
(MartinCarpenter) - F
Lightwave on 10/05/2010 05:38:39 MDT Print View

They still are horribly limited in terms of UK distribution, even in the more technical shops. (rare in London, like locusts in the Lake district ;)).

The Crux packs are much easier to find. No idea why its that way round! Especially as the Lightwave sacs always seem to do well in the magazine tests.

Its a strange world sometimes :)

Edited by MartinCarpenter on 10/05/2010 05:39:44 MDT.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: great review; additional usable volume on the Exos on 10/05/2010 13:14:43 MDT Print View

Hi EJ

It's not meant to be a secret, and this is a good place to point it out. many folks shy away from the mesh backed packs for winter use, but at least in the case of the Exos, that mesh space can be well utilised. In winter I put my hydration bladder there with a thin piece of evazote between it and my back. this keeps out snow, keeps the cold water off my back, yet also keeps the water from freezing. It adds around an extra 3 litres of usable volume as well, which also comes in handy on winter trips, and it's easier to get your bladder in and out of this space than the internal hydration sleeve. other stuff like rain jacket, wind layers, ground sheets etc...could also be put there if you prefer to carry your water in bottles. It is all these little extrs that make the Exos 58 (really a 61 in large, but who know what the true main pack volume is) a suitable winter pack for me. Generous top pocket, generous hipbelt pockets, generous side pockets and a generous kangaroo pocket for sleeping mat, sit pad etc...just don't try bushbashing in this configuration or something is going to get shredded!

Mike Alford
(mikebpl) - MLife
Re: Lightweight Internal Frame Packs: a State of the Market Report - Part 2: The Packs on 10/11/2010 01:50:38 MDT Print View

Thanks Roger, great analysis!
Just one question - how come theGoLite Pinnacle, wasn't included in your selection? At only 930 g it seems to fit nicely into that space on the upper left of your weight-volume chart.
Cheers,
Mike

Oops, I can answer my own question - just noticed that the Pinnacle is frameless.
Cheers

Edited by mikebpl on 10/11/2010 02:04:03 MDT.

Paul Hatfield
(clear_blue_skies) - F
Bending at the waist on 10/11/2010 22:11:12 MDT Print View

Bending at the waist doesn't seem to affect Lance Armstrong's performance terribly. Sure he would probably perform better on a recumbent bicycle, but it's clear that athletes can perform for many hours at very high levels of exertion with extreme bending at the waist.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Bending at the waist on 10/12/2010 03:39:20 MDT Print View

Ha!
And how long is a day's stretch on the Tour de France? NOT as long as a day's walking for sure, AND he has a team of masseuses at his beck and call AND a super-soft bed at night (and a cook).

A totally different situation, and not really relevant to walkers imho.

Cheers

aarn tate
(aarndesign) - MLife
: Forward lean and backward pull of the shoulder straps. on 10/13/2010 14:20:14 MDT Print View

Hi Roger,

The research compared an Aarn Bodypack with a Karimor Alpiniste internal frame pack - state of the art at the time- not an A Frame! Are A frames still available?

The picture shows you with quite a bit of forward lean. Forward lean is least when standing still as in your picture, greater when walking forward, and maximum when climbing. (The same is true without any load).

Trunk angle does not measure forward bend at the waist as you suggest, but the difference between a line drawn between the shoulders and the hips- and the HORIZONTAL. So bending forward at the ankles with a straight back is an economical posture to assume with the forward lean. As most of the subjects in the study were experienced backpack users, I assumed they also leaned forward in this way, but this could be checked with the original research photos.

Ray Lloyd, who did the original pioneering research on forward lean, has been doing some more work on load carriage. He recently wrote regarding his latest work: I quote "my current work seems to suggest that freedom of movement of the trunk is a determinant of economy (your double pack system allows more than either a backpack (which constrains to lean forward) or head-loading (which constrains to upright). In addition, our current findings suggest that individual variability of response in relation to economy is greater than we might have anticipated. Consequently we are intending to look at relationships between economy and kinematics at a range of loads and speeds and wondered if you might be interested in having some of your more recent designs tested in this context and, if so, if you would be able to send a sample(s)".

If you want to contact Ray his details are below:

Ray Lloyd
Head of School
School of Social & Health Sciences
Level 5 Kydd Building
University of Abertay Dundee
Dundee
DD1 1HG
Scotland

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: : Forward lean and backward pull of the shoulder straps. on 10/13/2010 15:44:03 MDT Print View

Hi Aarn

> The picture shows you with quite a bit of forward lean.
Well, maybe 4 - 5 degrees, yes.

> So bending forward at the ankles with a straight back is an economical posture
> to assume with the forward lean.
I agree, of course.

But I find it hard to imagine some bending forward from the ankles at 26 degrees, as your first posting stated. OK, maybe a severely overloaded SAS trooper carrying his FULL load of munitions and water might do that for 100 m from the chopper which landed him, but a walker with a reasonably light-weight pack???? Photographic proof would be needed.

As noted in some other postings, the backwards tension in the shoulder straps has been measured as not all that high *in practice*. This suggests to me that a reasonably light-weight load carried upright in a reasonably good pack is not really going to present that much of a problem. The amount of tilt needed to balance this will not be high.

Now, do we lean forward some more when going forward? Yes, we do, but that is needed to keep the CoG of the whole walker somewhere between the front and back feet. You would fall flat on your face if you didn't do this. And it may also be that the faster you go, the further forward the CoG needs to be.

That necessary forward displacement of the CoG has to be assessed in combination with the weight of the pack *relative to the walker's weight*. I weigh 64 kg; my pack weighs 10 kgs. The influence of the pack weight on how much my CoG has to move is not going to be all that large. This suggests that the change in position of the CoG due to a light-weight pack is not supremely important.

If there are other factors coming into play, such as the ability to see one's feet, than any small benefit from a shift forwards of the CoG due having front packs in place may *in practice* be inconsequential. This seems to be the experience of many walkers: they rate being able to see their feet far higher, especially in rough terrain.

Other factors which can detract from the front-mounted load include the increased heat load on the body from the reduction in ventilation, the increased difficulties experienced in swinging a pack on and off one's shoulders when there are large weights on the shoulder straps, and the increased problems when scrambling with a bulky thing at the front pushing you off the face. The importance of these factors will depend very much on the individual and what he is doing.

So while some people undoubtedly like having front-mounted packs to alter the CoG, the market place seems to be putting other factors higher in importance. Well, that's what the sales figures and walker preferences indicate, anyhow.

I hope this explains my thinking.

Cheers

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: : Forward lean and backward pull of the shoulder straps. on 10/13/2010 16:35:37 MDT Print View

"If there are other factors coming into play, such as the ability to see one's feet, than any small benefit from a shift forwards of the CoG due having front packs in place may *in practice* be inconsequential. This seems to be the experience of many walkers: they rate being able to see their feet far higher, especially in rough terrain.

Other factors which can detract from the front-mounted load include the increased heat load on the body from the reduction in ventilation, the increased difficulties experienced in swinging a pack on and off one's shoulders when there are large weights on the shoulder straps, and the increased problems when scrambling with a bulky thing at the front pushing you off the face. The importance of these factors will depend very much on the individual and what he is doing."

+1 to all of the above. However, Aarn packs used without the front pockets work very well too. It's mainly the lack of a hydration port that stops me from using them in this way...yet another factor important to *some* walkers.

Alan Bradley
(ahbradley)
R Caffin / Aarn: External frame / front aux pack on 10/16/2010 05:50:55 MDT Print View

Roger (Caffin):
Do you still think your external frame sacks are a lot better than commercial internal frame ones.

Aarn packs:
Doesn't the front rucksack cause overheating: now you have a lot of insulation over your temperature regulated core (chest)

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: R Caffin / Aarn: External frame / front aux pack on 10/18/2010 15:19:09 MDT Print View

Hi Alan

> Do you still think your external frame sacks are a lot better than commercial
> internal frame ones.
Let's say I still prefer my external frame pack for most conditions. It is very light, the harness suits me very well, and it handles anything between 8 kg and 28 kg happily. yes, I am able to carry up to 28 kg with it when portering in to a remote hut for a ski trip. I can't normally get that much capacity with the IF packs.

However, it does have one disadvantage. The frame is very light and could be damaged if mistreated. I package it up in a cardboard box every time I fly. If you are planning on flying and don't have a high load, an IF pack might be a safer (less worry) choice.

> Doesn't the front rucksack cause overheating
I found that it did on me, at least in an Australian summer. Perhaps I am a bit sensitive to this, as I normally travel with very light clothing.

Cheers