General UL Pack Question

[BobW]

I notice that a lot of the UL packs are shaving weight by going thinner on the hip belt. I upgraded to an Osprey Atmos 50 which has minimal belt and is comfortable for a 20 pound weekend which is 95% of my hiking right now.

I did more week & 2 week trips with my previous pack (an older Kelty). It had a huge pillowed hip belt and was very comfortable. The problem was it was close to 5 lbs.

I'm just wondering if the thin hip belt is going to be comfortable when I take on my long haul or if it's going to cause me to carry more on my shoulders.
Thoughts?

Should I disregard weight on a pack and go with comfort?

[bigcranky]

Should I disregard weight on a pack and go with comfort?

Well, this is the million dollar question, isn't it? But the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

If you need to carry 2 weeks of food, then an Atmos 50 probably won't handle that. But if you're on the AT for two weeks, which can be broken up into a series of 4-6 day hikes with resupplies, then it might be just perfect. For me, anyway, 50L is way more than enough except maybe in the winter.

I still have a couple of big 6+ pound packs that gather dust in my closet.

[Ktaadn]

I've recently switched to the Granite Gear Virga which has nothing more than a thin strap for a hip belt. As long as I keep the total weight under 20(preferably 15) pounds, the pack feels great. With a wider, more padded hip belt, I would normally center it over my hip bones. Now, I just let the thin hip belt sit more on top of my hip bones/love handles. That seems to take just enough weight off of my shoulders. If my upper back was a little bit stronger, I probably wouldn't need the hip belt at all.

[STICK]

I think that this is a very personal decision and the only way to find out for sure is to try it... I know that this is not the answer that you were probably looking for, but for each person there is a different answer...

My opinion, if you go out with a full 2 weeks (14 days) of food on your back, then a nice hip belt will definitely be worth it at the beginning, but keep in mind too that over the course of the hike the weight will decrease because you are eating your food... so then at the end the hip belt will possibly be overkill.

[Thenixon]

I went thru with the Exos 58, which also has a wispy little belt. for me, anything above 30 (at first) was uncomfortable on the hips. As the belt stretched and wore, that weight got a bit lower over the course of the trail. It was maybe at a 25lb comfort point in Maine, when the frame snapped - after that all bets were off. The hundred mile was pretty miserable...

I looked at the Atmos as a potential successor, because overall I was impressed with the Exos and I'm shaving my base weight down - however, my hips and ass have a memory of the pain and I could feel it all happening again.

[ScottS]

I go really light and I put almost all my weight on my hips. My packs hang off my shoulders, not on them.
I used to have a Granite Gear and loved the hip belt, putting me in a situation like you where I was scared of going lighter (Osprey Exos 46) and eventually even lighter (Gossamer Gear G4 MYOG). You'll be fine as your gear weight decreases.

[DaFireMedic]

I use a Gossamer Gear G4 which gives you the option of putting padding in the waist belt or not. I have not been using padding and have not seen any real comfort difference. If I was still carrying 50 lbs on my back, I would be concerned about it, but rarely does my pack get over 20 lbs anymore including food. Even when it does go over that, the waist belt doesn't seem to be bothersome. Some aren't even using waist belts at all for UL hiking.

[Lyle]

I just got my ULA Ohm 2.0 a day ago. Haven't had a chance to pack it up yet, will be using it next month for my 18 day section.

According to the website, the 2.0 was offered partially because some folks were complaining about the much more minimal hip belt on the original Ohm, particularly when the need to "overload" it arose. I must say, the Ohm 2.0 has a very nice hip belt. Fully padded, capable of adjusting for torso length, and even adjustable for your particular conical shape. Feels extremely comfortable (again, unloaded so far). This is very much a lightweight pack. Looking forward to getting out with it.

[Wags]

my summer UL pack doesn't have a hip belt. most of me weight is food, so as the days dwindle the pack gets light enough that it doesn't bother my shoulders....

[BobW]

Thanks everyone. Hike well and hike often!

[kevperro]

Personally.... I'd rather have a pack that can handle my top weight and not use it rather than the other way around. The packs available these days are good enough that with a 2-3lb pack you can carry any reasonable weight. There are a number of <3lb. packs that will comfortably carry 30lbs which is the top of the range I want to carry anyway. Find one in that 2-3lb range and you won't have to sacrifice the hip-belt and the extra 1lb. of carry weight will be welcome when you do have the need to carry a load. When you are empty an extra pound doesn't matter much.

[ScottS]

If you're carrying 30lbs, skimping on your pack should probably be one of the last things you try to address.

[stranger]

Thinking a more cushy belt is more comfortable and supportive than a thinner one is a fairly normal thing, but this is not always the case. What one person finds comfortable, another will not.

Generally speaking, the following determine hipbelt comfort:
- the 'cut' of the belt, how anatomically correct the shape is and surface area (how much of the belt is really making contact with your body)
- the type of foams used, some have 1 density, others have 2-3 different foams
- the person...including how easily the person's skin gets irritated and what clothing is worn
- having a correct fit and wearing the hipbelt at the correct location
- weight...the amount of weight on the hips

A thinner belt is no less supportive than a big cushy one if the thinner belt uses a more robust and supportive foam, a big, cushy belt with 1 inch of open cell foam will feel good for 200-300 miles, then the open cell collapses and you are essentially left with the one layer of foam anyhow.

Finally, the hipbelt does not determine how much weight is carried on the hips...the SUSPENSION determines this. The hipbelt however will determine how effectively this weight is supported (the sag effect)

Personally speaking, I find a thin, well cut hipbelt is far more comfortable, because it wraps the hips better and is more pliable for a better fit, plus I barely notice it.... I can't stand thick, wide hipbelts...but that's just me.

[STICK]

my summer UL pack doesn't have a hip belt. most of me weight is food, so as the days dwindle the pack gets light enough that it doesn't bother my shoulders....

Plus one....

[BobW]

Personally speaking, I find a thin, well cut hipbelt is far more comfortable, because it wraps the hips better and is more pliable for a better fit, plus I barely notice it.... I can't stand thick, wide hipbelts...but that's just me.

Awesome point. My daybag is an older North Face with a fairly substantial belt. The foam doesn't contour as well and I find that I spend a lot of time adjusting and re-adjusting. I love the suspension on my Atmos. I plan on doing Vermont with it in a few weeks. This should be a good test.

[Sherpa Master]

I carry an Atmos 65 and as long as I'm under 35 lbs I hardly notice the pack at all. The only discomfort I've ever felt from the thinner belt was when I wore a pair of pants with a gathered waist line and it rubbed a little. As long as I don't wear the gathered waist I have no problem with the Atmos hip belt.

[Tharwood]

Check out the Osprey Exos 46....