View Full Version : External frame vs. internal frame
Newbie here looking advice or the pros and cons of getting an external vs. internal frame backpack. Thanks for any thoughts.
Jarhead16
11-17-2007, 00:38
Externals provide more ventilation and are more rigid with points for hanging drying gear. BUT, internal frames tend to be lighter and more comfortable in my opinion.
Flush2wice
11-17-2007, 00:40
No one buys external frame packs anymore, at least not for use on the AT.
No one buys external frame packs anymore, at least not for use on the AT.
Yes they do. and yes they do. Check TJ, there are several each year.
I know of at least three here on WhiteBlaze who use (and praise highly) an external frame pack made by Luxury Lite -- hopefulhiker, MedicineMan, and myself. Hopefulhiker thru-hiked the AT with his in 2005 and I have hiked the length of the Superior Hiking Trail with mine each of the last two years. Mine holds 4200 cubic inches of stuff (they are customized to your order so this will vary from buyer to buyer) and weighs two pounds. It transfers weight to the hips and away from the shoulders so much better than internal frame packs that it does not require heavilly padded shoulder straps.
Internal frame packs were originally favored for mountaineering because the weight hugs your back more closely and internal frame packs also have advantages for bush-wacking. Most hikers, though, tend to stick to trails and for that a well designed external frame does the job at least as well or better than an internal frame pack. It's just too bad there aren't more pack makers these days making external frame packs, because recent innovations in light-weight design and materials would lead to the kind of competition that would have given us some mighty fine choices among external frame packs by now.
MedicineMan
11-17-2007, 02:37
I couldnt have said it any better :)
Externals: generally lighter, easier to fit, and cheaper, but only a few manufacutures make them
Internals: more common, more expensive, often heavier, harder to fit.
Doughnut
11-17-2007, 08:48
I use an External because it fits, and I like it. I replaced my bag last summer with a nylon single compartment from Cabela's (it fit the frame).
The problem I had was finding replacement pads and straps for my frame, I ended up buying a frame off eBay and cannibalizing it.
Lone Wolf
11-17-2007, 08:54
No one buys external frame packs anymore, at least not for use on the AT.
i did 4 thru-hikes with a Jansport D-2 frame pack. Frame packs are excellent for the AT. internals are overrated and are just big stuff sacks
i did 4 thru-hikes with a Jansport D-2 frame pack. Frame packs are excellent for the AT.
Mostly agree. I've walked about 2/3 of the trail with a Camp Trails Adjustable II, from 1988 or so.
internals are overrated and are just big stuff sacksI felt that way also, until I found one that I really liked. Some ultralight packs do fit that description.
take-a-knee
11-17-2007, 10:30
I just weighed my Kelty frame pack, circa 1978- 4#, 10oz. In 1979 it carried all my gear and most of my buddy's plus a brown bear skull (my buddy was carrying the hide) off the top of Hinchinbrook Island in Alaska. That was a 100# plus load. The pack is worn but servicable. Kelty repaired a couple of the nickel silver zippers for free 10yr ago.
Lone Wolf
11-17-2007, 10:40
Mostly agree. I've walked about 2/3 of the trail with a Camp Trails Adjustable II, from 1988 or so.
I felt that way also, until I found one that I really liked. Some ultralight packs do fit that description.
i do like my ULA Catalyst even though it is a big stuff sack.
I've been using my Jansport External since the early '90s. I recently considered purchasing a new pack and have been told by many sales people that external frame packs are dinosaurs and I should buy an internal frame pack. And since just about all I see out on the trail are internal frames I was starting to believe that to be the case. I sweat like crazy and having a pack directly on my back just seams nuts to me. This thread is very refreshing. I think my current pack has a couple of good years left but when I retire it I am pretty sure I will stay with an external frame.
Lone Wolf
11-17-2007, 10:42
I've been using my Jansport External since the early '90s. I recently considered purchasing a new pack and have been told by many sales people that external frame packs are dinosaurs and I should buy an internal frame pack.
that's just marketing BS. $300+ for a stuff sack is crazy :)
Couple of pros for the external is that they are easier to load - they stand up on their own, and somewhat hold their shape while empty, and that they can be propped up with a stick/pole and used as a backrest any place you want one. This last may sound trivial, but it is what I miss most about my frame pack. (Also miss the creak of leather or nylon harness as you walk, sortal like a horse saddle)
That said, I now use a ULA P2 which is lighter than my old Keltys and is every bit as comfortable. It is a hard decision which is better. If the Luxury Lite weren't so expensive, I might give it a try. Hopefully someone else will start doing some R&D with frame packs again and get some competition going - they could be awesome.
taildragger
11-17-2007, 11:41
I have an old peak 1 external and a gregory internal. I've got both and kept both because they each serve their purpose.
After bushwacking for about a week on a trip (unintentionally, I think the trail was blazed 20 years ago by a bobcat and hadn't been used since) and I got snagged on a trip that almost sent me off a cliff on the CDT. After that, I got an external for trips of that nature.
However, on my PCT hike next summer, I'll probably use my external. Its smaller, lighter, carries light loads well, I can strap water to it, and most importantly, ventilation ventilation.
Each has there own place, I'll use my external where no bushwacking or mountaineering is needed (or wanted) and I'll use my internal for those situations and cold weather
This thread is very refreshing. I think my current pack has a couple of good years left but when I retire it I am pretty sure I will stay with an external frame.
I know how you feel... but keep an open mind about it. It took me years and years to find an internal frame pack that would allow me to retire my old Camp Trails pack.
The Osprey Atmos packs are quite innovative -- a sort of hybrid internal/external frame design that combines the best (and worst) of both styles. But Osprey went and added too many doo-dads, so the packs end up with a poor weight/volume ratio. Too bad.
I really did enjoy my GG Nimbus Ozone on this year's hike. No regrets, no complaints. Now, that's a stuff sack with a very nice suspension...
Flush2wice
11-17-2007, 17:35
No one buys external frame packs anymore, at least not for use on the AT.
Yes they do. and yes they do. Check TJ, there are several each year.
Ok I exaggerated, maybe 2% of AT hikers still use an external.
i did 4 thru-hikes with a Jansport D-2 frame pack. Frame packs are excellent for the AT. internals are overrated and are just big stuff sacks
I wasn't criticizing them, I carried a D3 for 1500 miles in 91. I loved it.
Problem is- they are harder to find these days , most outfitters don't even stock externals. Also they are generaly heavier, not lighter. Mine was squeaky as I walked too, I don't miss that. They have plenty of benifits too, that you guys already mentioned.
whitefoot_hp
11-17-2007, 21:32
externals can let more air get to your back than most internals. a very important pro for the hot seasons.
externals can let more air get to your back than most internals. a very important pro for the hot seasons.
Check out the Osprey atmos
Jim Adams
11-18-2007, 15:56
Ok I exaggerated, maybe 2% of AT hikers still use an external.
I wasn't criticizing them, I carried a D3 for 1500 miles in 91. I loved it.
Problem is- they are harder to find these days , most outfitters don't even stock externals. Also they are generaly heavier, not lighter. Mine was squeaky as I walked too, I don't miss that. They have plenty of benifits too, that you guys already mentioned.
My externals are lighter than my internals.
Also cooler, more comfortable.:-?
geek
whitefoot_hp
11-18-2007, 16:05
Check out the Osprey atmos
defineatly thinking about that one. possible next purchase.
whitefoot_hp
11-18-2007, 16:05
My externals are lighter than my internals.
Also cooler, more comfortable.:-?
geek
what externals do you have?
bigboots
11-18-2007, 16:23
Lots of good points brought up about both styles. I also have both an internal and external, but I find myself siding with with internal more often. I like having everything contained inside the pack (this is also good for traveling), on my external I have a lot of stuff hookedon the outside. I also enjoy the versitility of the internal. My "oversized stuff sack" has the option to zipper off sections or to have one big pocket; my internal can't do that.
My best advise is to try both styles and make sure you don't listen to people who say one style is better than another...it's a personal feel. Remember that YOU are the one that has to hike with it on YOUR back!
dessertrat
11-18-2007, 16:52
Yes they do. and yes they do. Check TJ, there are several each year.
I haven't seen many externals anywhere in the last few years. I agree that a lot of people are buying internal frames, but I wonder how much of that is a function of marketing rather than need. (I have both and have used both; with a lighter load, it is easier to throw it all into an internal frame pack, but with a heavy load, external seems to support it much better).
Jim Adams
11-18-2007, 17:08
I haven't seen many externals anywhere in the last few years. I agree that a lot of people are buying internal frames, but I wonder how much of that is a function of marketing rather than need. (I have both and have used both; with a lighter load, it is easier to throw it all into an internal frame pack, but with a heavy load, external seems to support it much better).
Externls will definitely handle heavier loads but the key is not to have heavier loads.
My externals are Peak 1 old school with the nylon frame. My small one is 3600ci and weights 3lb. 7oz. My larger one is 4600 ci and weights 4lbs. 4 oz.
Both are lighter than my Dana Bridger 3600ci and North Face Minuteman 4400ci, and both are more comfortable and cooler than my G pack and my Atmos 50.
There are a few times that my internals function a little better than my externals but not often. I think that marketing has more to do with the current trends than actual function does.:confused:
geek
I dont feel like reading all this so let me add this regardless if it old. External packs (by design) distribute the weight to the shoulders, and internals distribute weight more to the hip. This is true for most, if not all models. No one go saying that Im wrong, or that it is just some models, etc. This is true by the way thay are made. Some externals have large padded hipbelts, but it still only keeps the pack from swinging, not supportive.
The Osprey Atmos packs are quite innovative -- a sort of hybrid internal/external frame design that combines the best (and worst) of both styles. But Osprey went and added too many doo-dads, so the packs end up with a poor weight/volume ratio. Too bad.An exercise of do-dads (some pointless) over function, they could straighten it out and make it a decent pack.
Jim Adams
11-18-2007, 22:56
I dont feel like reading all this so let me add this regardless if it old. External packs (by design) distribute the weight to the shoulders, and internals distribute weight more to the hip. This is true for most, if not all models. No one go saying that Im wrong, or that it is just some models, etc. This is true by the way thay are made. Some externals have large padded hipbelts, but it still only keeps the pack from swinging, not supportive.:-?
Most and at times all of my pack weight of my externals is carried on my hips, same as my internals.
geek
I dont feel like reading all this so let me add this regardless if it old. External packs (by design) distribute the weight to the shoulders, and internals distribute weight more to the hip. This is true for most, if not all models. No one go saying that Im wrong, or that it is just some models, etc. This is true by the way thay are made. Some externals have large padded hipbelts, but it still only keeps the pack from swinging, not supportive.
OK. I've done 90+ percent of my hiking with external frame packs, and I'm saying you're wrong. Laughably wrong. External frame packs are what the White Mountain hut croos use to schlep 100 lb. loads up to the huts. No way that would work with all the weight on the shoulders. Those boys and girls aren't stupid.
Dakota Dan
11-18-2007, 23:14
Back 10+ yrs ago I met a guy on the FHT with an external frame backpack with either carbon or composite framing. It was the neatest external I've ever seen. I wish I could think of the name.
I dont feel like reading all this so let me add this regardless if it old. External packs (by design) distribute the weight to the shoulders, and internals distribute weight more to the hip. This is true for most, if not all models. No one go saying that Im wrong, or that it is just some models, etc. This is true by the way thay are made. Some externals have large padded hipbelts, but it still only keeps the pack from swinging, not supportive.
Absoutely disagree. The only thing the shoulder straps have to do on an external, is keep the pack from flipping backwards and hitting the back of your legs. If they are adjusted properly, and fit properly, you can distribute the load carrying from all shoulders to virtually all hips, or anywhere in between. This is one of the reasons externals carry heavier loads more comfortably than internals - the frame is better at transferring the heavy weight to the hips.
dessertrat
11-19-2007, 10:31
:-?
Most and at times all of my pack weight of my externals is carried on my hips, same as my internals.
geek
Hey! Didn't you read what he wrote! He said he didn't want anyone disagreeing with him!:)
Even if he is wrong. . .
Jim Adams
11-19-2007, 13:24
Hey! Didn't you read what he wrote! He said he didn't want anyone disagreeing with him!:)
Even if he is wrong. . .
sorry...lost my mind there for a second!!!!!:D
geek
Fortunately for newb's we don't always get what we want. :-)
I've worked part-time at an REI for several years now, and I think I can tell you why there are so few external frame packs on the trail. THERE AREN'T ANY IN MANY OUTFITTERS! My store hasn't carried one on our shelves in about five years. The absence of externals is, to a degree, a marketing issue.
That said, externals are noticeably heavier than my internals. Most are about 4 1/2 pounds or heavier. I tried the LuxuryLite (at 2 pounds) and was very underimpressed. It was ok with a 20 pound load, but I had to really cinch the hipbelt to the point of bruising them at 35 pounds. Also the tubes tended to slump down and push into my lower back, preventing any breathing, which was the reason I got it. At $400+, it was outrageously expensive for what it did for me, so I returned it.
I started the AT with an external frame pack, but found I liked an internal better and switched to one in Hot Spings. I finished with the internal.
I've tried externals for summer use, but have found ventilated packs like the Gregory Z-55 or Osprey Atmos breathe just about as well. (I used the Z-55 last summer on the Sheltowee Trace in Kentucky - it breathed very well, though I did not like its suspension as much my older Gregory Z-pack.)
I still debate getting an older 4 1/2-pounder for summer ventilation, but thus far have settled for the hotter but extremely comfortable ULA packs I now own.
So if you have an external you like, by all means go with it. But consider that you can get equal or superior comfort with lighter loads for less weight with an internal frame if you don't go for the huge 5000 cubic inch "Sherpa" packs so prevalent in many outfitters.
The pack I use most often for hikes of up to a week in warm weather is the Golite Dawn. It doesn't have any frame whatsoever, nor does it have a clever little back panel into which you place a folded pad. I just cut a piece of blue foam the same height and circumference as the pack, put that in first, then put everything else into it. It has been comfortable with up to 25 lbs. More than that and I'd switch to an internal frame pack with good ventilation. The only problem I has is that, in very hot weather, I get a rash and sometimes zits :o where the pack rests on my back. I started hiking with an external frame pack which worked for heavy loads on smooth trails but didn't have much load control. If I stumbled and pitched forward, the pack would often finish the job by hitting me in the back of the head and drive my face into the ground. And then there were stream crossings.....
No, I won't go back anytime soon. I don't need a load monster because I don't carry monster loads.
Flush2wice
11-19-2007, 20:28
I've worked part-time at an REI for several years now, and I think I can tell you why there are so few external frame packs on the trail. THERE AREN'T ANY IN MANY OUTFITTERS! My store hasn't carried one on our shelves in about five years.
That's the problem. Packs are like shoes, you should try them on for fit (with a load). If the store has 12 internals and 1 external then that explains the demise of the external packs.
stranger
11-19-2007, 21:23
There are benefits to carrying both designs. External packs are very useful for long distance hiking on established trails, like the AT. Internals were originally designed for more active sports like skiing and mountaineering, but since the early 90's some internals have gotten to the level where their suspensions rival any external pack, thus making an external less necessary in most situations for most people.
Also, the internal pack industry marketing has been pretty damn effective, you can thank Dana Design for that one. They once had a slogan "For the Hardcore among us...you know who you are", absolutely brilliant and people were lining up to buy $420 Terraplanes that weighed about 8lbs. People would come into Campmor during 1994-1997 and just say "Dana Terraplane". No pack has ever had that level of popularity before or since. Just think, $400 and 8lbs empty and you can't keep them in stock!
Internal packs, atleast well designed models, are much better in terms of fit, stability and profile than typical external packs - but they are more expensive, potentially heavier with larger designs, much warmer and harder to pack correctly. Internal packs also require the user to load the pack full and not strap anything other than a closed cell pad outside, making them less flexible in terms of capacity. Internal packs need to be full and compressed to work at their top level. But they are much more quiet, easier to throw around or stash under a diner table, and are a tighter all around package on your back.
External frame packs transfer 100% of the weight to your hips (assuming you are fit right and adjusting the pack correctly) so are much easier to carry when you are balanced with heavier loads, but when they become unbalanced they can be a problem and hard to control. You can counteract this a bit by loading your heavier stuff lower in the packbag however. Also, they usually are easier to organize with their numerous pockets, although I never thought that was a benefit personally. They also have a much larger profile in most cases so they can be a drag if you need to be mobile (blowdowns, narrow trail through rocks, jumping into the back of a truck, etc..) The largest single disadvantage to external packs in my view is the squeak factor...this is a huge problem!
My observations over the pst 13 years, 9 of those in the pack industry, have led me to the following opinion when it comes to this debate - The higher end pack companies like Gregory and Osprey make internal packs that carry so well it's hard to see how carrying an external frame could be better for a typical trail hiker in most situations, given the level of fit and stability offered by those internal companies. However, if you are not carrying a high end internal frame pack, with the proven track records of Osprey and Gregory, then an external pack may be a better choice if you are sticking to well established trails like the AT.
But at the end of the day...it's what feels good on your back, and no amount of research, debate or design will change that. So if the pack feels good on you - then it's a good pack for you.
Tipi Walter
11-19-2007, 23:37
There are benefits to carrying both designs. External packs are very useful for long distance hiking on established trails, like the AT. Internals were originally designed for more active sports like skiing and mountaineering, but since the early 90's some internals have gotten to the level where their suspensions rival any external pack, thus making an external less necessary in most situations for most people.
Also, the internal pack industry marketing has been pretty damn effective, you can thank Dana Design for that one. They once had a slogan "For the Hardcore among us...you know who you are", absolutely brilliant and people were lining up to buy $420 Terraplanes that weighed about 8lbs. People would come into Campmor during 1994-1997 and just say "Dana Terraplane". No pack has ever had that level of popularity before or since. Just think, $400 and 8lbs empty and you can't keep them in stock!
Internal packs, atleast well designed models, are much better in terms of fit, stability and profile than typical external packs - but they are more expensive, potentially heavier with larger designs, much warmer and harder to pack correctly. Internal packs also require the user to load the pack full and not strap anything other than a closed cell pad outside, making them less flexible in terms of capacity. Internal packs need to be full and compressed to work at their top level. But they are much more quiet, easier to throw around or stash under a diner table, and are a tighter all around package on your back.
External frame packs transfer 100% of the weight to your hips (assuming you are fit right and adjusting the pack correctly) so are much easier to carry when you are balanced with heavier loads, but when they become unbalanced they can be a problem and hard to control. You can counteract this a bit by loading your heavier stuff lower in the packbag however. Also, they usually are easier to organize with their numerous pockets, although I never thought that was a benefit personally. They also have a much larger profile in most cases so they can be a drag if you need to be mobile (blowdowns, narrow trail through rocks, jumping into the back of a truck, etc..) The largest single disadvantage to external packs in my view is the squeak factor...this is a huge problem!
My observations over the pst 13 years, 9 of those in the pack industry, have led me to the following opinion when it comes to this debate - The higher end pack companies like Gregory and Osprey make internal packs that carry so well it's hard to see how carrying an external frame could be better for a typical trail hiker in most situations, given the level of fit and stability offered by those internal companies. However, if you are not carrying a high end internal frame pack, with the proven track records of Osprey and Gregory, then an external pack may be a better choice if you are sticking to well established trails like the AT.
But at the end of the day...it's what feels good on your back, and no amount of research, debate or design will change that. So if the pack feels good on you - then it's a good pack for you.
Well thought out post. When I really started backpacking in 1978-80, I went with what my local outfitter had, a North Face external(yes, they used to make a big external pack)called the Back Magic. I loaded this baby down with every thing from watermelons to canvas tipi covers to other loaded packs thrown on back. The thing was my constant companion for 20 years of daily use and the way it opened and sat ready for loading was a big plus. With heavy loads, around 80 pounds, the pack was a hip-wrenching hauler but it would perform no matter how I felt, and so I kept using it until the bitter end. Around 2001 I actually found it to be TOO SMALL so I located a Dana Terraplane LTW(6.7 pounds empty)internal pack and at 40% off(couldn't refuse), I used it on many long trips with between 60 and 75 pounds, routinely.
The reason the Dana's are popular and are seen(or used to be seen)so often on the shoulders of ardent backpackers is because they haul a lot of gear and feel great doing it. The Astralplanes are even beefier and can really tote some weight. Sadly, the Dana Designs brand is no more, but Dana Gleason has his own new stuff now(Mystery Ranch)and the one big drawback to a fully loaded Terraplane, sagging, is a thing of the past with the new G series MR packs.
The G6000(around 6400 cubic inches)is a great all-around load-hauling internal that can easily replace anyone's external if they think they want to go with something big and comfy without a frame. And let's face it, when people talk about external frame packs, they are not talking about the Army Alice system packs with the frames(too small) or the little Yucca frame packs, but large packs able to hump 50 to 70 pounds regularly.