View Full Version : Internal Frame Vs. External Frame
Main differences?One has a frame outside of the actual pack, and the other has the frame constructed internally.
I mean other than physical. What are the pluses and minuses of each?
Okay, seriously, very few use external frames anymore, even geezers like me. They are heavier for the same capacity.
Advantages of external frames are they are cooler in hot weather (soemtimes) by letting air flow around your back, they have compartments to keep things organized, and they tend to feel less heavy than the same weight of an internal pack. They don't ride as well when you are not upright (as in crawling under blowdowns).
Internal frames are lighter but you have to put everything in the same big compartment. They ride closer to your body and so sway less, but you really sweat in hot weather.
Most everyone uses internal frame packs these days, but it is still a personal choice. There is no right or wrong pack as long as you like it.
You can often find external frame packs in yard sales for next to nothing. But one and try it out.
I have an external pack now. The thing is we have two, but we're planning on taking a trip with me, my dad, and my sister, so we'll need another. I am leaning towards an internal frame but I wanted to know the real differences in performance, so thanks for the input!
Main differences?
Externals are for old guys. Get an internal frame.
Panzer
Strategic
09-16-2008, 00:20
then go ahead and get the pack you'll want for that now. That's generally going to mean a fairly light, large capacity frameless or internal frame pack.
The frameless options are essentially ultralight packs that use some other means of providing support (usually the folded or rolled sleeping pad) and are generally only good if you're carrying an ultralight load (base pack weight of no more than about 10lbs.) I'd guess that you typically carry more weight than that (though it never hurts to cut out what you can) so it's doubtful that's an option you want.
That leaves you with internal frame packs, but that's a pretty broad category to cover with a single description. Some have very little frame at all (my old Go-lite Gust has only a closed cell frame pad, for instance) while many of the commercial packs (Osprey (http://www.ospreypacks.com/index.php), Gregory (http://www.gregorypacks.com/us/), etc.) will have aluminum stays and consequently weigh more. There are also innovative designs like the larger ULA (http://www.ula-equipment.com/circuit.htm) packs and the Granite Gear (http://www.granitegear.com/products/overview/backpacks.html) packs that use other frame materials (delrin rod for the ULA packs and plastic or composite frame sheets for the Granite Gear packs.) In general, the aluminum framed production packs are much heavier (usually by a pound or two) and offer more pockets and divisions. The more innovative designs are generally lighter and have more attention to fit and efficient load-carrying.
How you choose is often the problem. You can usually find the production packs at outfitters like REI (or even at sporting goods stores) so trying them out in a limited fashion without buying is possible. Most of the more innovative gear comes from relatively small shops (and, by the way, is mostly made right here in the U.S.) and tends to be hard to find "in the flesh." I am currently using my (now much modified) Go-lite Gust, but I'm planning to switch to a ULA Circuit when I get the chance (and cash.) I've mostly based that on finding out with the Gust what I really needed for a comfortable pack and the stellar reviews of ULA's packs by many others. I've also had good relations with them myself for other gear, so they're a gear maker I trust through experience.
That's about what it boils down to with packs these days. I'd say try what you can and then think very hard about what you need the pack to do (how much you need to carry in volume and weight, how you pack, how you hike, how your body carries load, etc.; i.e., all the same questions you'd ask anyway with a new pack purchase.)
Hope this helps.
Let me preface this by saying that I use my ULA P2 almost exclusively now because of the weight difference. That said, the previous posters have missed a couple of the most compelling arguments for an external frame as far as I'm concerned. I miss these attributes more than the air circulation.
1) Externals are much easier to pack. The pack retains it's shape when empty, and will continue to stand upright, with it's mouth open, waiting for you to fill it. This is a HUGE plus when you want to pack up in a hurry.
2) The externals make much better backrests during breaks and at camp. Either lay it down, fully loaded and lean against the sleeping bag, or, better yet, prop the pack up against a tree or hiking staff, and you have the equivalent of a Lazy Boy out in the woods. This was one of the most valuable lessons I learned from Colin Fletcher. Nothing beats sitting at an overlook, lounging against your easy-chair pack, and sipping a hot cup of coffee!
papa john
09-16-2008, 06:39
Well, I am guess I am an "old guy"! I have 2 externals and 2 internals. I use them all depending on where I am going and how long I will stay out. I like them all, they each have their good points and bad. Right now I am packing for 5 days out with no resupply and will take the Equinox Katahdin or the Kelty Super Cirque (see gallery pics).
Externals can generally carry heavier loads. They don't carry quite as snugly as an internal, so in the long run, they cause you (the hiker) to tire more quickly. The trend over the years (for serious long-distance hikers) has been toward internal-frame packs and lighter loads. But hut crews in the White Mountains still use external frame packs, as far as I know.
rootball
09-17-2008, 19:23
ULA Catalyst is what I am using now. Its big, light and rides pretty well. But it is for lighter loads. Monster loads are off the table for me - never again.
Blissful
09-17-2008, 20:31
I saw both on the AT last year. But internal by far was the pack of choice. Lots of Osprey users out there.
Nothing wrong with either one, use the one you like, HYOH.
Personally I like externals, I like all the pockets and the air flow around your back. If I did long distance hiking I may have liked internal frames. But I don’t do long distances and my packs are paid for and I see no need to replace them. There are too many other cool hiking toys to buy to worry about what pack to use.
Externals can generally carry heavier loads. They don't carry quite as snugly as an internal, so in the long run, they cause you (the hiker) to tire more quickly. The trend over the years (for serious long-distance hikers) has been toward internal-frame packs and lighter loads. But hut crews in the White Mountains still use external frame packs, as far as I know.
Most of the hut crews use pack boards. A few use other packs, such as large internals.
Main differences?
Back to basics here.
About 40 or so years ago, the external frame pack, probably a Kelty, arrived on the market. It was an alternate to the canvas frameless packs that most of us used at the time. No hip belt either.
For a long time, external frame packs came to dominate the backpacks.
The, the internal frame pack came along. It was sold as being better for off trail use, (which most people don't do anyway), but the novelty caught on, just like the SUV craze.
Currently, most manufacturers have discontinued the external frame pack. And I don't think that major outfitters like EMS and REI even carry an external frame pack at present.
Advantages of the external frame pack: easier to fit, and cheaper.
Advantages of an internal frame pack: much more available.
Weight wise, depending on model, an internal frame pack can be either heavier or lighter than a comparable external frame pack.
That being said, if you are in the market for a pack, consider Osprey or Gregory packs. Both are internal frame, and sold by most outfitters. Currently Osprey packs are very popular, but you may find that Gregory fits you better (or may find that Osprey fits you better).
hopefulhiker
09-18-2008, 10:27
Luxury lite makes an external carbon/aluminum external frame 2 lb pack with a front pack.. I used one for the whole hike in 05. It allowed for more venilation. took all the weight off the shoulders and put it on the hips, the front pack balanced the load between front and back. This pack is a good option for a thru hike..
Luxury lite makes an external carbon/aluminum external frame 2 lb pack with a front pack.. I used one for the whole hike in 05. It allowed for more venilation. took all the weight off the shoulders and put it on the hips, the front pack balanced the load between front and back. This pack is a good option for a thru hike..
Unfortunately, they have priced themselves out of the mainstream market in my opinion. Nearly $400 seems a bit much compared to other packs that are available. Might be nice if you have the cash.
I just wish someone would design a light, reasonably priced external frame pack.
Pedaling Fool
09-18-2008, 11:02
This is one of them "lightening rod" issues that usually just spark fights between members and you don't really get too much info. Lots of info on the web, just do a yahoo search.
If you were to do a poll on this issue, I'll bet the internal frame would win, but that doesn't mean it's the best pack for you.
Here's just one website that compares the two
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/External-Frame-vs--Internal-Frame-Backpacks/14509
I just wish someone would design a light, reasonably priced external frame pack.
The pack I have now is a Jansport Carson external, 4900 ci, 4lb13, I think it was around $100. Not a bad pack, it's worked well for me, but I haven't compared it to others.
You can hang stuff off the external. I really prefer them although I usually use the Internal because my son takes the external.
stranger
09-20-2008, 00:53
Traditionally, external packs were designed for typical, trail hikers, who aren't going to need a whole lot of mobility, cause they are just walking down an established, cleared, bridged trail. Internal packs were first designed for the more technical outdoor activities that require control, skiing, climbing, shoeshoeing, etc...But in recent years, or atleast gradually from around 1990-1995 there was a major push to go internal for a number of reasons.
First off, the internal frame has much more potential than the external frame. External frame packs are great for what they are designed to do, but are not good when it comes to what they are not designed to do. While internal packs can do a wider range of activities with a higher level of success. For example, you wouldn't want to go snoeshowing in a external pack, while an internal is quite comfortable for typical trail hiking. In other words, external packs are not versatile for most people. This is not much of a problem if you are a typical trail hiker, because most, not all, sections of trail require little more than putting one foot in front of the other.
Saying that, no internal pack has ever been able to match the sheer weight transfer of a solid external design, assuming the pack is fitted and put on properly (and this is rarely done in my experience). And while an external is great when the weight is balanced, it's terrible when it isn't. Leverage is everything with packs, it can work with you or against you, and external packs work against you when they are not balanced. It's kinda like balancing a baseball bat on the palm of your hand - it seems light...now tip the bat horizontally to either side and try to raise it up vertically - now it's very heavy. The weight of the bat hasn't changed, the leverage has. External packs are the same.
There are somewhat overrated benefits (in my view) to external packs like the ventilation factor, being able to strap stuff outside, having pockets, not having to fill up the pack,etc...But honestly, atleast for me, these features are meaningless. The main advantage of a good, well fitted and applied external is the sheer 100% weight transfer to the hips, which mean your shoulders and back are not doing any work, when the pack is balanced atleast. This results in being able to hike more miles with less effort, atleast for me. While internals who do apply weight to the shoulders and back, make a greater number of muscles do work, and you fatigue quicker over time.
Internal packs became more popular originally from marketing. Gregory's slogan was "Wear It...Don't Carry It" and Dana's classic "For the hardcore among us...you know who you are" did alot for the internal market in the late 80's early 90's. Although Lowe claims they were the first internal pack maker, a claim that is widely accepted, they never had the marketing or the designs to really change the market. Dana Gleason and Wayne Gregory did.
The main differences with the newer, superior designs, was the fact that they could support heavy loads on established trails, something most internal packs lacked to do up until then. So, while an external pack is great for trail hiking only, you could but a Dana and it was very good for everything. Also, the flexible nature of the newer internals instantly felt better on the backs of hikers who were used to a rigid frame being strapped to their back. Also, the packs came in sizes (like shoes), had different hipbelts and shoulder harnesses, the first womens designs (Gregory), and let's face it - they looked pretty damn cool in the shop.
I used an external pack for many years, and tried to not like internal packs for ages. But after product testing so many, doing mult-week hikes with them and getting over my hangups I was as we say "converted". I personally believe that most hikers are better off in a "high end" internal pack than a traditional external pack, but they also cost much more. That was another reason why external packs stayed around for so long, you could buy a Camp Trails McKinley in 1995 for $99, while a Dana Design Terraplane cost around $419. And back then (1995-7) the Terraplane was hard to keep in stock, even at over 400 bucks and almost 8lbs empty! In those days, with the exception of Dana, Gregory, Osprey and the then emerging ArcTeryx, most other internal packs weren't worth considering, even Granite Gear wasn't doing anything worth noting back then, other than attempting to copy existing designs. Saying that, GG did invent the carbon fiber framesheet (i believe), but Dana and Gregory were using carbon fiber long before GG.
Since then, external packs are slowly dying. Internal packs have peaked, they peaked in my opinion in the late 90's and I can't think of a single innovation since that is worth noting since the end of the century. Materials have gotten lighter and more durable, designs have worked and failed, companies come and gone (RIP Dana Design, Marmot is not DD by the way, not even close) and some pioneers are on there way out, training up their replacements and retiring. In the mid 90's we saw both Gregory and Dana making incredible high end external packs in the Evolution and Loadmaster series, but most hikers would have none of it. The Dana frames had their 15 mins of fame, but they were eventually dumped after Dana Gleason quit his now K2 owned company. The Evolution by Gregory, although a great pack, just never, ever caught on, I think it lasted 3 seasons at best.
So, what's the point in all of this? I think I may have forgotten after all this rant haha. I guess in closing, there are many different designs of packs out there, and everyone is different and likes different things. No one can tell you that something is comfortable, because they are speaking about themselves, not you. Many people like to eat cheese, I for one hate it, this is not a choice, the same with packs.
For example, I wouldn't carry a Granite Gear pack if you paid me, but they are everywhere and people love them. Others will put on an Osprey or Gregory and hate them, while I love both pack companies. Some people like Mountainsmith, while I try not to laugh just thinking about that, and others will swear by Lowe Alpine, something I just can't understand. It's all about preference, fit, body type, mindset, conditions, torsion flex, rigidity, etc...
Until you put on a pack and talk a long, long walk, it's hard to tell. Sorry for this long rant, perhaps I miss the pack industry!!!!!!!!
Crazy_Al
09-21-2008, 16:26
External frame pack are uncommon on the AT. I think you might have a hard time finding external frame packs, and there would be a small selection available.
SunnyWalker
09-21-2008, 17:51
This is like owning a car. If you do not want to be disastisfied with the "car" you are now driving, do not look at new cars. (smile). I use an external (Kelty) and with the belt it is the greatest pack I ever have ever used. A mite heavier than others, but I compensate by keeping all "stuff" to a minimum. Maybe when I save up or win the lottery I might go looking at packs. Smile.
NICKTHEGREEK
09-21-2008, 18:36
Traditionally, external packs were designed for typical, trail hikers, who aren't going to need a whole lot of mobility, cause they are just walking down an established, cleared, bridged trail. Internal packs were first designed for the more technical outdoor activities that require control, skiing, climbing, shoeshoeing, etc...But in recent years, or atleast gradually from around 1990-1995 there was a major push to go internal for a number of reasons.
First off, the internal frame has much more potential than the external frame. External frame packs are great for what they are designed to do, but are not good when it comes to what they are not designed to do. While internal packs can do a wider range of activities with a higher level of success. For example, you wouldn't want to go snoeshowing in a external pack, while an internal is quite comfortable for typical trail hiking. In other words, external packs are not versatile for most people. This is not much of a problem if you are a typical trail hiker, because most, not all, sections of trail require little more than putting one foot in front of the other.
Saying that, no internal pack has ever been able to match the sheer weight transfer of a solid external design, assuming the pack is fitted and put on properly (and this is rarely done in my experience). And while an external is great when the weight is balanced, it's terrible when it isn't. Leverage is everything with packs, it can work with you or against you, and external packs work against you when they are not balanced. It's kinda like balancing a baseball bat on the palm of your hand - it seems light...now tip the bat horizontally to either side and try to raise it up vertically - now it's very heavy. The weight of the bat hasn't changed, the leverage has. External packs are the same.
There are somewhat overrated benefits (in my view) to external packs like the ventilation factor, being able to strap stuff outside, having pockets, not having to fill up the pack,etc...But honestly, atleast for me, these features are meaningless. The main advantage of a good, well fitted and applied external is the sheer 100% weight transfer to the hips, which mean your shoulders and back are not doing any work, when the pack is balanced atleast. This results in being able to hike more miles with less effort, atleast for me. While internals who do apply weight to the shoulders and back, make a greater number of muscles do work, and you fatigue quicker over time.
Internal packs became more popular originally from marketing. Gregory's slogan was "Wear It...Don't Carry It" and Dana's classic "For the hardcore among us...you know who you are" did alot for the internal market in the late 80's early 90's. Although Lowe claims they were the first internal pack maker, a claim that is widely accepted, they never had the marketing or the designs to really change the market. Dana Gleason and Wayne Gregory did.
The main differences with the newer, superior designs, was the fact that they could support heavy loads on established trails, something most internal packs lacked to do up until then. So, while an external pack is great for trail hiking only, you could but a Dana and it was very good for everything. Also, the flexible nature of the newer internals instantly felt better on the backs of hikers who were used to a rigid frame being strapped to their back. Also, the packs came in sizes (like shoes), had different hipbelts and shoulder harnesses, the first womens designs (Gregory), and let's face it - they looked pretty damn cool in the shop.
I used an external pack for many years, and tried to not like internal packs for ages. But after product testing so many, doing mult-week hikes with them and getting over my hangups I was as we say "converted". I personally believe that most hikers are better off in a "high end" internal pack than a traditional external pack, but they also cost much more. That was another reason why external packs stayed around for so long, you could buy a Camp Trails McKinley in 1995 for $99, while a Dana Design Terraplane cost around $419. And back then (1995-7) the Terraplane was hard to keep in stock, even at over 400 bucks and almost 8lbs empty! In those days, with the exception of Dana, Gregory, Osprey and the then emerging ArcTeryx, most other internal packs weren't worth considering, even Granite Gear wasn't doing anything worth noting back then, other than attempting to copy existing designs. Saying that, GG did invent the carbon fiber framesheet (i believe), but Dana and Gregory were using carbon fiber long before GG.
Since then, external packs are slowly dying. Internal packs have peaked, they peaked in my opinion in the late 90's and I can't think of a single innovation since that is worth noting since the end of the century. Materials have gotten lighter and more durable, designs have worked and failed, companies come and gone (RIP Dana Design, Marmot is not DD by the way, not even close) and some pioneers are on there way out, training up their replacements and retiring. In the mid 90's we saw both Gregory and Dana making incredible high end external packs in the Evolution and Loadmaster series, but most hikers would have none of it. The Dana frames had their 15 mins of fame, but they were eventually dumped after Dana Gleason quit his now K2 owned company. The Evolution by Gregory, although a great pack, just never, ever caught on, I think it lasted 3 seasons at best.
So, what's the point in all of this? I think I may have forgotten after all this rant haha. I guess in closing, there are many different designs of packs out there, and everyone is different and likes different things. No one can tell you that something is comfortable, because they are speaking about themselves, not you. Many people like to eat cheese, I for one hate it, this is not a choice, the same with packs.
For example, I wouldn't carry a Granite Gear pack if you paid me, but they are everywhere and people love them. Others will put on an Osprey or Gregory and hate them, while I love both pack companies. Some people like Mountainsmith, while I try not to laugh just thinking about that, and others will swear by Lowe Alpine, something I just can't understand. It's all about preference, fit, body type, mindset, conditions, torsion flex, rigidity, etc...
Until you put on a pack and talk a long, long walk, it's hard to tell. Sorry for this long rant, perhaps I miss the pack industry!!!!!!!!
One of what has to be the 10 best posts ever.
skinewmexico
10-01-2008, 11:14
I still use my Kelty 50th Anniversary external when it's hot, or I need to carry a big load. I consider it the pinnacle of external development (4+ pounds). It weighs a lot less than many of the big bombproof internals. Most of the time, I use my REI UL 60, and I just got a Gossamer Gear Mariposa. Light is good.
When I started hiking, I used a external. A couple years ago I got an Atmos 65.. love it! The mesh back eliminates the hot back feeling that internals give me and I can keep my Platypus or Camelback in there. One thing I like about externals is that when you sit your pack down and the frame keeps the pack off the ground... that's the main thing I miss.
I switched to internal in 2000. Biggest difference and main reason I switched was because I found it easier hiking, tripping over rocks, climbing over deadfalls, and going up and down steep inclines with the internal balanced snuggly on my back.
If you can keep your load between 25-25 lbs, you can go frameless. My Golite Dawn pack weighs 14 oz. without the blue closed cell foam liner. Frameless packs need to be packed fairly tightly to carry as well as an internal. Using the pad as a tube (lining the pack) into which you stuff things makes a frameless pack carry quite well.
If you can keep your load between 25-25 lbs, you can go frameless.
Pretty narrow margin there. I don't think I'm that precise. :D