Pack question - external vs. internal frames

[swjohnsey]

There are always some folks who like to swim upstream. Take a look a what folks are usin' in the way of gear on the trail. The majority ain't always right but it pays to take notice. Shaffer and Espey were usin' surplus army packs (frameless) and it worked for them. I saw folks usin' ALICE packs. I carried an ALICE for about a million miles.

[stranger]

I inherited a nice old school external frame pack form my Pops, still in great condition, that he used when he went on his thru hike back in the day. I see that most of the packs that are made now are internal frame and seems that most people prefer them to the external. Was wondering why they so common to use the internal frame packs nowadays. I'm sure there is good reasons other than it being just a new trend or something. Is a better design, or just personal preference? Or is there any advantages / disadvantages for one over the other? I just wouldn't want to go ahead and use it if it was going to end up being an issue or burden on the trail. Would be great to have your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks - Niko

There are many opinions on this question, so I will try to stick to the facts.

External Frame Packs - generally older designs, we're originally designed and intended for established trail hiking like the AT. The idea being the frame has no flex, so the weight of the pack (a heavy pack) could be carried 100% on your hips, keeping your shoulders and back from doing the work and carrying the weight on your legs, which are much stronger, thus exerting less energy to carry the pack. This concept assumes your pack is somewhat heavy, thus needing to avoid utilising the back and shoulder muscles. Becaus the frame is not dependant on the contents for structure, you can have pockets, stuff lashed outside, etc... Because the suspension (frame) is not compromised from this. This also means the pack can be off your back, allowing better air circulation between you and the pack.

External cons - they are not flexible, so they have zero torsion flex, meaning the packs have a single pivot point - the hips. This means when the pack is balanced, it's great, when it's not...it shifts. Also, they are awkward to regain control, it's like taking a baseball bat and balancing it on your palm, it feels very light, now wrap your hand around the bottom of the bat and lean it horizontally, now it's very heavy, same concept. Other cons are the bulk factor, the packs are quite big, they can be heavy, and they SQUEAK, don't underestimate the squeaking, trust me! Finally, they have been left behind by the industry, this means most of the new materials are not offered in external frame packs, the foams are not as robust, materials not as comfortable or well thought out. In the 90's both Gregory and Dana Design brought externals back from the deal, but then the swing went back to internals eventually.

Internal Frame - originally intended to do what external packs couldn't...skiing, climbing, snowshoeing, off trail hiking, etc... The frame became a variety of 'internal' support structures that follow the contour of the spine. These generally consisted of 'stays' (metal bars) that slid through etiher a dense foam framesheet or later, plastic framesheets. Other designs started using fiberglass and cabon fiber struts that ran down the sides of the pack. A big downfall internal packs from a manufacturing standpoint was their fixed lengths, so this was the birth of multiple size packs, in some cases up to 8 frame lengths (thank you Dana Gleason). The packbags were meant to be narrow, and the internal contents compressed up against the frame (by compression straps) gave the pack much of it's structure. Because the pack is dependent on the contents to help with rigidity, they avoided pockets and focused on a single large compartment. However the narrow packbag, flexible frame, more detailed fit and held snug up against the back gave the user a feeling like they were 'wearing' the pack, not carrying it - this was Gregory's slogan for many years 'Wear It, Don't Carry It'. Many external users loved the stability and flex of the internals, and the stability was hard to abandon once felt. Then came womens sizes, multiple hipbelts, shoulder straps, womens shoulder straps and hipbelts, etc... Plus they looked damn cool and there was massive, just massive marketing with internals starting in the late 80's. The end result was that as more and more people abandoned externals, the technology and industry supported the internal market and the external died in many ways. But really, the final analysis is that a rock solid, high end internal frame does most activities very well, where as a good external is decent only for trail hiking. So for most hikers, the internal design is a better choice.

Internal cons - they are warmer, up against your back. They also fatigue you more because they work a greater amount of muscles, meaning all things equal, on a flat section of trail...you will do more work in a $350 internal than a $100 external...on a FLAT SECTION OF TRAIL. They are harder to pack for newbies, and you really shouldn't put anything heavy outside, becasue the internal load is designed to support the suspension. They are more expensive and harder to fit.

In 2013...as more and more people are going lighter, and carrying 40-50-60 litre packs...there is becoming less and less need to use a massive external with a high profile that can support 60lbs, times have changed, it's really that simple. In 1995, silnylon didn't exist in the outdoor industry, now it does. In 1992, most people used sythentic sleeping bags, now almost no one does, remember those heavy leather boots? Now mostly abandoned. Andrew Skurka is not really saying anything that Ray Jardine didn't, sure it's more detailed and more tested perhaps, but the ideas are very similar...yet Jardine was always considered a nutjob and Skurka is praised...20 years will do that. Things change.

Nothing wrong with an external, just like there is nothing wrong with VCR's

[jeffmeh]

Very well said, Stranger. Externals and internals are really different tools. I would take my 1980 Trailwise external (RIP, the pack fabric eventually rotted out - the OP should check for this) over any internal if I were taking heavy loads up and down any non-technical trail. Heck, for a really heavy load it is hard to beat a packboard, the extreme end of external. On the other hand, with a much lighter kit, or for anything technical, including skiing or snowshoeing, an internal is far more suitable for balance and weight.

[R1ma]

In 2013...as more and more people are going lighter, and carrying 40-50-60 litre packs...there is becoming less and less need to use a massive external with a high profile that can support 60lbs, times have changed, it's really that simple. In 1995, silnylon didn't exist in the outdoor industry, now it does. In 1992, most people used sythentic sleeping bags, now almost no one does, remember those heavy leather boots? Now mostly abandoned. Andrew Skurka is not really saying anything that Ray Jardine didn't, sure it's more detailed and more tested perhaps, but the ideas are very similar...yet Jardine was always considered a nutjob and Skurka is praised...20 years will do that. Things change.

Nothing wrong with an external, just like there is nothing wrong with VCR's

Takes me back... In 91, did Philmont with 2 groups - so that what 20-25 12-15 year olds + 5 adults IIRC. Only 2 of us had internal frames but maybe 50% rocked down bags. I still have my internal from that trip, even though it weights over 4 lbs, and the down bag, even though it's lost probably 15% of it's down over the years - not exactly downproof seams - and is much worse for wear

Now, I haven't hiked with an external since 90, and even then, the packs were from the 70s/early 80s, but they always felt like I was strapped to a rack. I've gotten far too used to the flexibility afforded with internal and frameless packs.

[stranger]

Very well said, Stranger. Externals and internals are really different tools. I would take my 1980 Trailwise external (RIP, the pack fabric eventually rotted out - the OP should check for this) over any internal if I were taking heavy loads up and down any non-technical trail. Heck, for a really heavy load it is hard to beat a packboard, the extreme end of external. On the other hand, with a much lighter kit, or for anything technical, including skiing or snowshoeing, an internal is far more suitable for balance and weight.

Haha...Packboard! There are probably about 50 people on here that will know what a packboard is. An interesting note, back in 1998ish I was out with the guys from Dana Design hiking on the Long Trail, and one of their reps, a guy who had climbed Everest, filled a massive cooler with about 30 beers, then ice, and carried it to the top of Mount Mansfield in one of their externals. I remember on top he said something like "those internals have their place, but they can't do this"....haha.

[swjohnsey]

You will see packboard when you get to the AMC huts.

[Miami Joe]

My first pack was a Jansport external. I loved the damn thing and wore it out. Internal packs have their advantages, to be sure, but so do externals. As someone mentioned in an earlier post, internals are the better options for skiing. For long-distance backpacking, I still prefer the external-frame design. You can carry more weight more comfortable, you can lash things onto the pack with ease, external frames are easier to pack (and unpack to get at things) and POCKETS! SO MANY POCKETS!

[aficion]

1974 Camptrails Ponderosa still in service. I have done many recent short trips with my 4 kids using this pack for our tent and cooking/eating gear, etc. We divy up food and they carry their own sleeping gear clothes, and personal items.
Being able to add a 12 pack of beer is a bonus when you are walking into a PATC Cabin for a 4 night stay in SNP. Oh and did I mention the fishing gear and fifth of Makers? Original pack bag, frame, shoulder straps and belt. Best money I ever spent on camping gear. When I do my thru in 1917 it will be hard to leave it behind, but I will. Right now Z packs arc blast looks best to me. It'll carry all I need to stay comfortable in the woods. By then there is no telling what else will be available. Must have breathable mesh and separation/air between my back and the frame 3 season.

[moytoy]

aficion ..when your done with that time machine I would like to borrow it

[Train Wreck]

1974 Camptrails Ponderosa still in service. I have done many recent short trips with my 4 kids using this pack for our tent and cooking/eating gear, etc. We divy up food and they carry their own sleeping gear clothes, and personal items.
Being able to add a 12 pack of beer is a bonus when you are walking into a PATC Cabin for a 4 night stay in SNP. Oh and did I mention the fishing gear and fifth of Makers? Original pack bag, frame, shoulder straps and belt. Best money I ever spent on camping gear. When I do my thru in 1917 it will be hard to leave it behind, but I will. Right now Z packs arc blast looks best to me. It'll carry all I need to stay comfortable in the woods. By then there is no telling what else will be available. Must have breathable mesh and separation/air between my back and the frame 3 season.

Please notify the ATC when you finish your thru, so they can knock Earl Schaffer down into 2nd place as the first hiker to ever complete the trail

[aficion]

Please notify the ATC when you finish your thru, so they can knock Earl Schaffer down into 2nd place as the first hiker to ever complete the trail

Hey if I could really lose a century, well it would be a great temptation. LOL

[k2basecamp]

I love my Alpenlite external. Used it in 1981 on my thru and again in 2011 on my 30th anniversary 335 mile trek from Katahdin to Mt. Washington. I have tried internal frames and they are not comfortable and are hot, and a pain to pack/ unpack. Newer is not better.

[jeffmeh]

Haha...Packboard! There are probably about 50 people on here that will know what a packboard is. An interesting note, back in 1998ish I was out with the guys from Dana Design hiking on the Long Trail, and one of their reps, a guy who had climbed Everest, filled a massive cooler with about 30 beers, then ice, and carried it to the top of Mount Mansfield in one of their externals. I remember on top he said something like "those internals have their place, but they can't do this"....haha.

Yes, externals are still far superior for lugging large quantities of beer, lol.

[hauptman]

Depends upon weight.

External---30+
Internal---15+
No frame---less than 15