UL, just a phase?

[Aaron l]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why are manufacturers making packs that they claim are comfortable at 30lbs but not at 35lbs? Seems to me like a strategy to get me to buy more than one bag because 5lbs has become the straw on the camel. When these companies make comfort claims, what are they based on and how can a pack be comfy with 30lbs but not 35lbs (this claim is also made by frameless packs which blows my mind!), is this all just the new iphone? My kelty trekker is comfy at 0lbs to beyond, what am I missing out on?

[Tuckahoe]

I have a Kelty Trekker too, and its a great pack. The great thing about external framed packs is that they are intended to carry heavier loads and always comfortable, no matter the weight.

But for hikers working to go UL the 5lb weight of that frame pack to carry heavier loads becomes unnecessary when one is only carrying 20 or so pounds. For UL hikers they realize that with the much lighter load, they can drop another 3 or so pounds from their base weight using a pack for their style of hiking. In a sense its the right tool for the right job.

My personal take on comfort weight is that some manufactures are being generous when they claim their packs are comfortable to a certain weight.

While I will always keep my Trekker I picked up a Kelty PK 50 to go with a smaller and lighter load.

[BirdBrain]

The obvious answer is a lighter pack. I have a cannibalized Osprey Aether 60. I took every item off that I could. It is heavy, but soooooo comfortable. I am scared to try the ul packs. I am afraid that I might find one that I like and have to spend more money.

[RED-DOG]

you not missing anything when a manufactuer makes a claim like that it's just advertisment, what a manufactuer claims a bag will perform like and what it actually performs like in the field is two totally different things. i got a bag that the manufactuer says don't carry no more than 35lbs in it and i have had upwards of 40+lbs and it still very comfy.

it's just advertisement to get you too buy something, to make you think that is what you need.

[Aaron l]

I really like the features on the pk 50, how do you like it, how does it compare to your trekker? I want to upgrade but the manufacturers have made it so confusing

[The Kisco Kid]

Um, external frame packs were "just a phase" in the 1970's/1980's. Hardly anyone using them anymore, for good reason: they're heavy and bulky.

[rocketsocks]

A phase, nought. In the 80's there was a push for ultra light, packs were made out of light weight polyester, they were expensive, light, and fragile. Jux...new materials made it more viable...they are here to stay.

[Mags]

Um, external frame packs were "just a phase" in the 1970's/1980's. Hardly anyone using them anymore, for good reason: they're heavy and bulky.

Still has a niche for heavy load carrying on trails, though. Esp for a "daddy duty", where everything is strapped to the outside, the inexpensive ($25 or or so used) external works well.

As for being heavy, the average external is roughly 3.5 lbs. Considering many internal packs from major manufacturers, until recently, was 6+ lbs for a comparable size, not bad at all.



(My buddy and his two sons ..5 and 8)

[Aaron l]

"Phase" was a bad choice of words, sorry about that, I totally agree with the philosophy and think it has changed backpacking for the better. It just seems like if I want to upgrade to a lighter pack I would have to buy more than one to take the place of my kelty, which would save 2.5 lbs. now I really like the SMD fusion and the stackpack, but there isn't enough information out there to justify the purchase amount

[bigcranky]

Yes, Ultralight backpacking is just a phase. In a few years everyone will be back to carrying 60 pounds the way Colin Fletcher intended, and your old external frame will fit right in.

Also, too, there will be free bacon deliveries to the backcountry.

[bigcranky]

On a serious note, there are plenty of ~2 or 3 pound internal frame packs that can handle 30 pounds or so total. This seems to be the sweet spot for lightweight backpacking.

True "ultralight" hikers don't need a pack that carries anywhere near 30 pounds except in desert country with long dry stretches or really big food resupplies.

[russb]

There are also quite a few sub 3lb external frame packs. I still have mine feom the 70s and it is just shy of 3lbs.

[Astro]

Still has a niche for heavy load carrying on trails, though. Esp for a "daddy duty", where everything is strapped to the outside, the inexpensive ($25 or or so used) external works well.

As for being heavy, the average external is roughly 3.5 lbs. Considering many internal packs from major manufacturers, until recently, was 6+ lbs for a comparable size, not bad at all.



(My buddy and his two sons ..5 and 8)

5 yr old does not have much of a pack, but you have to give him credit for carrying Dad's crocs.

[MuddyWaters]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why are manufacturers making packs that they claim are comfortable at 30lbs but not at 35lbs? Seems to me like a strategy to get me to buy more than one bag because 5lbs has become the straw on the camel. When these companies make comfort claims, what are they based on and how can a pack be comfy with 30lbs but not 35lbs (this claim is also made by frameless packs which blows my mind!), is this all just the new iphone? My kelty trekker is comfy at 0lbs to beyond, what am I missing out on?

A UL pack is a different beast from a conventional pack. It has limits.
After some maximum weight, belt no longer supports the wt on the hips, the pack doesnt prevent torso length collapse and wt transfer to the shoulders.
Figure about 5 lb less than what a UL pack mfg claims. They are giving the upper limit, seriously the UPPER limit, of what that pack can handle reasonably comfortably.

Conventional packs dont have quite the issues. Most of them are good for 50 lbs. They are not always good for 80-100, but some special better packs are.

The thing is , if you will never carry more than 30 lbs, you DONT need an overbuilt heavier pack that is designed to.

As far as frameless goes, you can effectively use sleeping pads as support to prevent torso collapse up to about 20. After that, well any comfort" is really all a state of mind. To prevent torso collapse you have to pack the pack tight, and it becomes misshapen and uncomfortable to carry. Frameless packs should be soft and conform to your back. The overriding issue of wt on shoulders is that there are nerves that run thru our traps (pressure point, pinch it and it will put you on your knees), and weight on these, more than ~15 lbs becomes very uncomfortable after a short while, or with repeated bouncing .

[Mags]

5 yr old does not have much of a pack, but you have to give him credit for carrying Dad's crocs.

Yeah..this was Elijah's first trip. We wanted to keep the loads light for both of them, but esp the little guy. Elijah was quite proud to be carrying something for his daddy.

[1azarus]

and yes, you might end up with two packs -- one for summer use and one for winter use. that level of specialization makes sense to most for their sleeping bag rating and their clothing -- a summer bag, and a winter bag, a down jacket and a wind shirt... I would argue it makes sense for packs, too.

[Tuckahoe]

I really like the features on the pk 50, how do you like it, how does it compare to your trekker? I want to upgrade but the manufacturers have made it so confusing

I love the pack.

First I would not consider the PK 50 to be a UL pack, especially when compared to packs from ULA. But 3 pounds is a pretty respectable weight.

The roll closures on each part of the bag are well thought out. I like that I can seperate the 15L section of the pack from the main bag, and I end up putting my inflatable pillow into that bag for a great larger improvised sleeping pillow. I am also pleased that the pack is designed so that each piece of gear has its place, and I can get to what I want without digging through the pack or taking it apart. It is not just a top loading bag, and the 35L bag has a roll closure at both the top and bottom.

I hike with a hammock and synthetic top and bottom quilt. I have no issues packing them, but UL tents and down bags and quilts would pack smaller and be a more efficient use of the pack'space.The pack has also aided my goal of packing minimally. I have worked to leave behind those items that I do not need and rarely use.

I also find that this pack is most comfortable if I keep my total weight in the 20 to 22 pound range. As it hits 30 its not as comfortable.

And I have never really written a pack review so if there is a specific question I will be happy to address it.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Some people like or need a to carry a more stuff than others. Some can't afford very lightest in sleeping bags, tents, etc. Some people's gear is just heavier due to their purpose, particularly if they are hiking in winter or carrying a lot of "luxury items". Different packs for different purposes.

I think the 30 - 35 pound rating range found on a lot of packs have come about based upon the reduced weight of modern gear and what the average hiker carries on an average 3 season trip. WB is probably not the best example of an average hiker. People here tend to be very weight conscious, even the non-UL crowd. Think more along the lines of weekend summer hikers. And manufacturers compete to trim the empty weight of their packs, while still making them suitable for carrying "x" number of pounds. They have to draw a line somewhere for marketing purposes. But just how well these packs actually carry those stated loads is also subject to how one packs the gear in the pack, gear volume, size/strength of the individual, etc. A lot of factors are in play. For me, a 30 pound load requires a pretty good suspension to be comfortable, but I rarely if ever carry that much. When I do I use a 4 lb internal with frame and padded belt, etc. At my normal 15 lb (incl food+water) summer load, a 1.5 lb daypack often is perfect.

[garlic08]

I like to think of my pack's weight-to-payload ratio. My Gossamer Gear G5 (discontinued) weighs 9 oz and can comfortably carry 20 pounds all day. That's a payload ratio of 35. If I had a pack that weighed 5 pounds, could I carry 5 x 35, or 175 pounds in it? I doubt it! That to me is the essence of a UL pack, but the rub is that you need to reduce your load to 20 pounds.

...After that, well any comfort" is really all a state of mind.../

That says it very well--comfort is a state of mind. And it's also relative.

[The Solemates]

while advertising has a lot to do with it, 5 lbf is 17% of the total pack weight of 30 lbf....which is not a trivial percentage. That requires a stiffer/heavier pack to support.