Kelty external frame pack question

[CO_west]

A neighbor is cleaning out his garage, and he asked me if I was interested in buying any of his old backpacks. He has two Kelty external frame packs that are 15-20 years old, and they're both in pretty great condition. I was thinking about just buying both, but I'm trying really hard to not be a hoarder. I would like an external frame pack just to have around, especially for camping with the family.


One is a Kelty Super Tioga from the mid-90's (looks like the one in this picture (http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/superslow5/Album%20Charlie%201/IMG_0115.jpg)). I believe it has 4900 cubic inches of space. The other one is a Kelty Trekker from the early 2000's, the exact model pictured in this link (http://www.sierratradingpost.com/kelty-trekker-external-frame-pack-for-men~p~85114/).


For those of you familiar with these packs, is there anything that would make one better than another? Both are in the size range I want and both fit. The Trekker is about five years younger. The frames are different, though. I don't have a picture of the Tioga frame, but it is less of a straight H shape compared to the Trekker.

It's interesting to me that Kelty stopped making the "radial" frame for the Tioga, and even their recent 5500 cu in Tioga (https://www.backcountryedge.com/kelty-tioga-5500-classic.html) used the H frame found on the old and new Trekkers. I would imagine the choice to eliminate the radial frames was all about dollars and cents.


So yeah... if anyone has any input or knows anything about the history behind these models, please let me know!

[hyperslug]

If my memory serves me well the Super Tioga was the better version. If neither have peeling coatings or stink of mildew then that is the one I would go with. To be honest though I haven't used an external fame since the 70's and the only thing I think they excel at are packing out elk though I know other people will disagree.

[Zach ADK]

I bought a '90s Kelty external frame pack about 6 years ago for about $15 because the frame was adjustable and I am too long for most normal frames I had tried on older backpacks, and I was (and am) too cheap to spend a lot on a pack unless I was going to use it all of the time. I have liked mine quite well, have never carried it more than about 20 miles in a day, though. in 2014 I built a wood strip canoe and another larger one the following year, and the pack is great for carrying one of them. The big one is about 34 pounds plus the paddle, life jacket and such, and with some little brackets I made for the top of the Kelty I can carry it over my head upside down, with no hands required. The only downside is turning when off-trail in the woods, since the canoe is almost 15 feet long. It makes a great umbrella too. There may not be a canoe in your future, but if you think there might be then one if these packs is very handy.
Zach

[Greenlight]

I bought a Kelty Trekker a couple of years ago. The company is still making them. With modern suspension systems, good weight distribution, and versatility due to customizable attachment points and lots of external pockets, they're not bad packs. They're not UL. They make you look like Nick Nolte in AWITW, but they're ok in the comfort department, even if they do reach out and grab some of the local flora at times. That, and since they don't exactly hug you, getting under stuff, through tight spaces, etc is more of a concern. They're actually sort of fun to wear. They've got their own history, and I was one of those pesky Scouts who was wearing them when internal frame packs were still being R&D'd. The evolution of external frame packs produced a solid product. They just aren't as sexy as an internal, and for "green tunnels" like the AT, no longer popular for all of the standard reasons.

You'll get a really hokey trail name, too, prolly.


I bought a '90s Kelty external frame pack about 6 years ago for about $15 because the frame was adjustable and I am too long for most normal frames I had tried on older backpacks, and I was (and am) too cheap to spend a lot on a pack unless I was going to use it all of the time. I have liked mine quite well, have never carried it more than about 20 miles in a day, though. in 2014 I built a wood strip canoe and another larger one the following year, and the pack is great for carrying one of them. The big one is about 34 pounds plus the paddle, life jacket and such, and with some little brackets I made for the top of the Kelty I can carry it over my head upside down, with no hands required. The only downside is turning when off-trail in the woods, since the canoe is almost 15 feet long. It makes a great umbrella too. There may not be a canoe in your future, but if you think there might be then one if these packs is very handy.
Zach

[pilgrimskywheel]

While these would make nice GIFTS for youngsters going on day hikes or maybe weekend trips, they are not worth money because they are not worth carrying. IMHO - not interested in a debate, thank you. While there is doubtless to be some blow-back from the retro crowd and these are in fact backpacks you COULD use - there's a reason you won't find these in stores, and rarely on trail(s). (Yes, you MAY find them em in each.) Pack technology has come 100 years ahead in just the last 10 years. If you're going to make a used pack purchase, this site and others is loaded with great, gently used, modern technology packs you'll really love carrying.

I went from carrying a large Alice pack with no frame to a gently used Granite Gear rig in 2012 (Thanks Lumpy!) and it was like getting out of my Grandfather's Oldsmobile and into a new Mustang.

There's a reason these models have been on a shelf for 20 years. If he's "cleaning" out the garage what's he waiting for? These items do not appreciate in value - they made millions of em, and nobody wants em anymore.

PS: They'd make a lovely donation to a local center that provides services to the homeless who always value any kind of pack. Or, maybe the BSA, or Boys/Girls Club.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Very good external frame packs in their day. Check out the condition of the foam pads in the shoulder straps and hip belt thoroughly as the foam can become hard and even crumble when it gets old depending largely upon how it was stored (environmental conditions). Also look for delamination of the polyurethane coating. It will often have a chemical smell if it is starting to degrade.

[MuddyWaters]

If you have a use for them...give him $20 for both, because thats about all they are worth . External frames still excel at hauling real loads on flat trails in hot weather. People will use them to carry ropes and gear to backcountry camps

Donate to charity and writeoff 300.

[bigcranky]

Put some weight in the Super Tioga and wear it around for a while. I had one for my first pack back in the early 90s, and the top of the frame dug into my should blades on both sides. If it wraps around your shoulders, it should be fine.

That said, I wouldn't use one these days either. :)

[Time Zone]

If you have a use for them...give him $20 for both, because thats about all they are worth . External frames still excel at hauling real loads on flat trails in hot weather. People will use them to carry ropes and gear to backcountry camps

I am intrigued by them for these reasons - that they are said to be particularly good in hot weather (superior ventilation) and that they carry heavier loads more comfortably. And yes they are worse for rock scrambling and overgrown areas. I used an external frame pack on my first AT miles in the 80s as a teen.

Recently I encountered a group of young hikers who rented 3 Kelty Trekkers from a local university. Seeing them all matchy-matchy piqued my interest and so I asked them how it came to be.


Donate to charity and writeoff 300.

This sounds like tax fraud to me, or something uncomfortably close; I'd recommend against it.

[HooKooDooKu]

External frame packs still make for great packs. For starters, the frame gives you a lot of space to lash additional gear to. But as to why they are not longer made? Well I think that today, for the same cost, you can make a lighter internal frame pack that will perform just as well.

So it would make no sense to spend $$$ on a new external frame pack when for the same money you could get a comparable pack for the same money that is lighter.

But if you can get one of these at a really good discount ($20-$50 depending upon the condition), that's a great deal to get started in camping until you're ready to spend $$$ on a lighter pack.

[trailmercury]

Technically speaking, the Zpacks "Arc" packs are External Frame

[Ercoupe]

I picked up a 70's trekker for 20. Removed the top bar and cut-off the top brace. Lowering the branch grabbing pack which I replaced with my stripped down G-4 from gossamer gear. Got me down under 3 lbs. Still a little wide on the top, but comfortable with great ventilation and load carrying capacity. Best feature I like is the old quick release metal waist bucket, wish someone would make it in lighter plastic.

[Time Zone]

But as to why they are not longer made? Well I think that today, for the same cost, you can make a lighter internal frame pack that will perform just as well.

So it would make no sense to spend $$$ on a new external frame pack when for the same money you could get a comparable pack for the same money that is lighter.

But if you can get one of these at a really good discount ($20-$50 depending upon the condition), that's a great deal to get started in camping until you're ready to spend $$$ on a lighter pack.

Plus the externals can be squeaky and look unwieldy. I'm still intrigued by the claims that they can carry moderate to heavy loads more comfortably (not just from better ventilation) ... that's no small benefit, perhaps easily overlooked because they tend to be heavier packs. The popular emphasis on reducing weight may drown out many other important considerations, like how well one's pack carries weight.

Frankly it's been too long since I used one, so I cannot remember how well it carried for me, and I'm quite sure I didn't do a side-by-side comparison of an internal vs. external frame with the same gear way back then.

I'm not really great with physics but I'm trying to reason through why an external frame would carry better. For a given amt of gear, you pretty much have the same points of contact (hips, shoulders). Anyone know a plausible physical explanation why externals might carry more comfortably, beyond the ventilation issue?

[MuddyWaters]

Technically speaking, the Zpacks "Arc" packs are External Frame

as be the osprey exos

[rmitchell]

Plus the externals can be squeaky and look unwieldy. I'm still intrigued by the claims that they can carry moderate to heavy loads more comfortably (not just from better ventilation) ... that's no small benefit, perhaps easily overlooked because they tend to be heavier packs. The popular emphasis on reducing weight may drown out many other important considerations, like how well one's pack carries weight.

Frankly it's been too long since I used one, so I cannot remember how well it carried for me, and I'm quite sure I didn't do a side-by-side comparison of an internal vs. external frame with the same gear way back then.

I'm not really great with physics but I'm trying to reason through why an external frame would carry better. For a given amt of gear, you pretty much have the same points of contact (hips, shoulders). Anyone know a plausible physical explanation why externals might carry more comfortably, beyond the ventilation issue?

More adjustable.

I still carry an external frame pack, a late 70's Trailwise. It has a number of modifications, including a Kelty hipbelt. Empty it weighs in at 4lbs 2oz.

YMMV, but for me with a 26lb load it carries better than a Gregory G4 or Golite Race that I still own.

Yes it is tricky to negotiate a blown or scramble. It does squeak sometimes but that just adds to its personality.

[HooKooDooKu]

I'm not really great with physics but I'm trying to reason through why an external frame would carry better. For a given amt of gear, you pretty much have the same points of contact (hips, shoulders). Anyone know a plausible physical explanation why externals might carry more comfortably, beyond the ventilation issue?
I think it has something to do with such a ridged frame can better transfer the load to your hips, keeping the weight off your shoulders and spine.

[nsherry61]

Both external and internal frame packs carry heavy loads best by transferring the weight to your hips effectively. I assume most of us know this. They also stabilize the load against our bodies while allowing us to move pretty freely.

The external frames are stout and ridged, which allows them to transfer the load equally well even when the load increases, because the frame is so stout.

Most internal frame, and more modern, ultra-light external frame packs have a limit to how much load the frame can carry before it no longer transfers the weight well because the lighter frame systems have more give in them.

Internal frame and ultra-light external frame packs tend to carry intermediate and light loads much better than external frames because they hold the load closer to you body for a more stable center of gravity and also flex with your movement instead of fighting your movement, which a rigid frame will tend to do. As an extreme example, skiing with an external frame pack sucks compared to an internal frame.

Big, heavy-hauling internal frame packs, designed for huge loads (like the Gregory Baltoro) also carry huge loads well, maybe better than external frames, but they are not most internal frame packs.

External frames are unsurpassed at hauling big, heavy, uneven loads that can be strapped down to the frame securely in a way that just doesn't work with the softer internal frame designs. Also, with external frames you can take some of the load off your hips and shoulders by pulling up on the bottom of the frame with your hands.

The staff for the AMC mountain huts in the White Mountains of NH, for instance, use big pack frames to haul in all the food and supplies and haul out all the garbage. A crate of fruit and vegetables, and a lead-acid battery just don't fit well into an internal frame pack.

[CO_west]

Well after all this, the Trekker is definitely better looking. It's really like new. I always wanted a nice Kelty pack when I was a kid, so maybe I can enjoy some nostalgia trips with it.

[Toolshed]

I resurrected my old Camp Trails '72 lake cruiser external frame in a fit of nostalgia back in the mid-90's. I spent a summer using that pack on mostly mild trails in Northern PA and the Northville Placid Trail in Adirondacks. I then went back to my Lowe Alpine Contour IV.
Pros:
- Pack doesn't stink after 4-5 hot days since it is slightly off your back

And Why I would never use it again:
- Constant creaking and groaning fo frame
- Ex. Frame can quickly knock you off kilter (especially if you haven't used it in a while)
- Constant jingle of the ring pins that hold the frame to the straps

[Venchka]

It's a well fact that a TrailWise external frame pack makes a very good raft. For those times when you need to swim across the Colorado River. In the Grand Canyon. Alone.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kyhipo]

I have hiked with the super and trekker loved my tioga,it was a tough bag .I liked the extra space,and like to drill holes in frame for hanging gear,trust me for a person who started hiking with a dollar store bookpack and Walmart sleeping bag and hiked plenty of the trail like that,both backpacks a good ofcourse its only a opinion.

[Venchka]

There never was anything wrong with the better quality external packs. Ed Hillary, Big Jim Whittaker, etc. summited Everest with external frame backpacks. The 4 pound figure stated above is at or below the weights of several popular backpacks from Osprey, Gregory, etc.
Unfortunately, all of the cool kids were climbing and using internal frame packs. Everyone else wanted to be like the cool Climbers.
Seek Outside is quietly reviving the external frame backpack. Good ideas endure.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk