TYPES OF PACKS
Walk into any outdoor equipment store and you’ll be confronted by a vast array of packs. Any could be used for backpacking; the problem is to determine which are right for your kind of backpacking. Many people use one pack for all their hiking. If you do, then you need a pack with enough capacity for the bulkiest loads you’re likely to carry. Overstuffing a too-small pack is not the way to achieve a comfortable carry. If you go on trips year-round, you may be better off with more than one pack, so you can tailor the load to their capacity and weight. I now regularly use three packs: a 21.5-ounce, 4,000-cubic-inch frameless pack for trips where the load will be less than 30 pounds; a more supportive 39.8-ounce, 4,000-cubic-inch internal frame pack for loads between 30 and 45 pounds; and a 115.6-ounce, 7,200-cubic-inch internal frame monster for even heavier loads. A pack designed to carry 60 pounds comfortably will be fine with 30 pounds, but the converse is not usually true. If I could keep only two packs, I’d drop the lightest one. If I could keep only one, it would be the heaviest. Of course if you do only short three-season hikes with light loads, then you’ll need only a light, relatively inexpensive pack. You can always add a larger, heavier pack if you decide on longer or colder-weather hikes and an even bigger one for extended cold-weather trips.
Before I go into the details of pack design and construction, here’s a brief overview of types of packs.
Ultralight Packs
The new ultralight packs weigh about a pound and are designed for loads up to 20 pounds. These packs have minimal features, with no frames and often no back padding or hipbelts. Once you’d probably have had to make such a pack yourself, but now several are sold by companies like GoLite, Lynne Whelden’s LWGear, and Gossamer Gear (formerly GVP). The pack that started this revolution is the GoLite Breeze, designed by Ray Jardine based on the one he uses on his long-distance hikes. The Breeze is as simple as can be—just a large nylon bag made from tough Dyneema gridstop nylon with padded shoulder straps, mesh side and rear pockets, and a rollover closure. The medium size holds 2,900 cubic inches, plus another 850 if you use the extension, and weighs 14 ounces. However, the title for lightest pack goes to the astonishing 7-ounce, 3,800-cubic-inch Gossamer Gear G5, which is made from 0.5-ounce ripstop nylon and has a webbing belt and mesh pockets. Gossamer Gear packs are designed to use a foam pad as a frame and to have small items of clothing stuffed into the shoulder straps and hip-belt as padding, though you can use small foam pads. The G5 is clearly a specialist pack that won’t be very durable—Gossamer Gear describes it as for the “fanatic” ultralight hiker. Gossamer Gear’s other pack, the Mariposa (formerly G4), has a similar design, weighs 18 ounces with all options and 15 ounces stripped, and has a capacity of 4,600 cubic inches. It’s made from 2.2-ounce ripstop nylon, more durable than the 0.5-ounce but still not tough. The mesh used for Lynne Whelden’s One Pound Pack, a 3,500-cubic-inch model that actually weighs 12.5 ounces, should be harder-wearing. I’ve tried the GoLite Breeze and the Gossamer Gear Mariposa/G4 packs, and although they’re fine with loads under 20 pounds, they’re a little too minimalist for me. Using them reminded me why padded backs, frames, and hipbelts were developed.
An ultralight pack. GoLite Breeze.
CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT: (1) Ultralight pack with mesh pockets (GoLite Breeze), suitable for loads up to 20 pounds. Front view. (2) Lightweight pack with lightly padded back and unpadded hipbelt (GoLite Gust), suitable for loads up to 30 pounds. Back. (3) Lightweight pack with lightly padded back and unpadded hipbelt (GoLite Gust), suitable for loads up to 30 pounds. Side. (4) Lightweight pack with padded back, framesheet, and padded hipbelt (ULA P-2), suitable for loads up to 40 pounds. Front. (5) Lightweight pack with padded back, framesheet, and padded hipbelt (ULA P-2), suitable for loads up to 40 pounds. Back.
Add a little more weight and a few more features, and there are plenty of day packs in the 1,800- to 2,500-cubic-inch range weighing 1.5 to 2.5 pounds that could do for ultralight backpacking.
Lightweight Packs
Not many people get their total loads below 20 pounds, but plenty carry no more than 25 to 45 pounds. For these weights you don’t need a fully specified heavy, traditional backpacking sack, but you do need more support than you get from an ultra-light pack with no frame or hipbelt. Lightweight packs weigh from 1 to 4 pounds and have capacities from 2,500 to 5,000 cubic inches. The most basic have padded backs but no frames and simple unpadded hipbelts. Thirty pounds is usually the comfort limit for these. Add an internal frame and a padded belt, and that limit goes up to as much as 50 pounds. Until the first ultralight packs appeared, lightweight packs were hard to find. At first I couldn’t find one I liked; now the problem is deciding which one to choose. The growing list includes:
A lightweight pack. ULA P-2. (Padded hipbelt not shown.)
Dana Design Racer X—variable capacity (you strap on dry bags or stuff sacks), 34 ounces
GoLite Jam—2,500 cubic inches, 23 ounces
GoLite Infinity—2,750 cubic inches, 39 ounces
GoLite Speed—3,400 cubic inches, 33 ounces
GoLite Gust—3,900 cubic inches, 21 ounces
GoLite Trek—4,800 cubic inches, 42 ounces
Granite Gear Virga—3,400 cubic inches, 20 ounces
Granite Gear Vapor Trail—3,600 cubic inches, 32 ounces
Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone—3,800 cubic inches, 48 ounces
Gregory G—2,900 cubic inches, 42 ounces
Gregory Z—3,750 cubic inches, 50 ounces
Kelty Cloud 4000—4,000 cubic inches, 40 ounces
Kiskil Outdoors Mithril—4,400 cubic inches, 20 ounces
McHale Spectra SUBPOP—3,500 cubic inches, 39 ounces
Mountainsmith Auspex—4,200 cubic inches, 55 ounces
One Pound Plus Pack—3,340 cubic inches, 23 ounces (available from both Lynne Whelden and Equinox)
Osprey Aether 60—3,700 cubic inches, 56 ounces
Six Moon Designs Starlite—4,100 cubic inches, 27 ounces
Ultimate Direction WarpSpeed—3,000 cubic inches, 42 ounces
ULA (Ultralight Adventure Equipment) P-2—4,025 cubic inches, 40 ounces
ULA Fusion—3,500 cubic inches, 32 ounces
Wild Things AT—5,000 cubic inches, 40 ounces
Weights and capacities are size-dependent, of course. Most of these packs come in several sizes. The figures quoted are mostly for large sizes.
Standard Packs
Despite the lightweight revolution, most packs still fall into the standard pack category, and there are dozens of models. I now use a standard pack only for loads of more than 45 pounds. I no longer carry that much very often, but when I do I still appreciate the comfort. These packs are sophisticated, complex, expensive, and marvelous. Without them, carrying heavy loads would be much more arduous. This category subdivides into two suspension systems based on frame type. Each system has its dedicated, vocal proponents.
First came the external frame of welded, tubular aluminum alloy; its ladderlike appearance was common on trails worldwide in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. It’s a simple, strong, and functional design, good for carrying heavy loads along smooth trails but unstable in rougher, steeper terrain. It’s easy to lash extra items to the frame, making capacities enormous.
Although external frames have been to the summit of Everest, mountaineers found them unstable for climbing, generally preferring frameless “alpine” packs that hugged the back closely.
KEY FEATURES: PACKS FOR LOADS OVER 30 POUNDS
A good fit. A poorly fitted pack can give you sore shoulders and hips and an aching back and is also unstable.
A well-designed hipbelt. A good hipbelt should support 90 percent or more of the load without rubbing or making your hips sore.
Curved, padded shoulder straps with top tension/load-lifter straps to take pressure off the top of your shoulders.
A frame or framesheet to help transfer weight to your hips and prevent lumpy gear from poking you in the back.
A capaci
ty and design suitable for the gear to be carried. A pack for summer trails doesn’t need ice-ax loops, ski slots, or room for a four-season sleeping bag—a pack for a winter ski-backpacking trip does.
Light weight. The pack should be as light as possible for the weight to be carried—10 percent of the total load weight at most.
An external-frame pack.
Standard pack with internal frame and thick hipbelt (Gregory Shasta), suitable for loads of 50+ pounds. Back.
However, these were uncomfortable with heavy loads. To combine stability with comfort, flat, flexible metal bars were added to the backs of the alpine packs, stiffening them and making it easier to transfer the weight to the hips. Thus, in the late 1960s the internal-frame pack was born. The design developed rapidly, and today most backpackers choose internal-frame packs. Ranging in capacity from 3,000 to a frightening 9,000 cubic inches, they serve just about any sort of backpacking, from summer weekend strolls to six-month expeditions. Internal-frame packs require careful fitting and adjustment, but if you’re prepared to take the time for a proper fit, they’re an excellent choice.
External frames seem to be fading away. Backpacker magazine’s 2004 Gear Guide lists four companies that offer external-frame packs—and fifty that offer internals. And those four companies (Bergans, Coleman, JanSport, Kelty) offer more internal-frame packs than external-frame ones.
Travel Packs
Travel packs are derived from internal-frame packs and have similar suspension systems and capacities. The frame and harness can be covered by a zippered panel when they’re not needed (or when you don’t want to risk the suspicion that packs engender in some officials and in some countries) and to protect them from airport baggage handlers. With the harness hidden, travel packs look like soft luggage, with handles, zip-around compartments, and front pockets, and they can be used like suitcases when packing and unpacking. My limited usage of one Lowe Alpine model suggests that they’re all right for the occasional overnight trip but don’t compare with real internal-frame packs for comfort, which seems to be the general consensus. The larger ones with internal frames are probably adequate for moderate loads (40 pounds or so) as long as you don’t mind the panel zippers.
SUSPENSION SYSTEMS
The suspension system is the most important feature to consider when choosing a pack; it supports the load, and it’s the part of the pack that comes in contact with your body. A top-quality, properly fitted suspension system will let you carry loads comfortably and in balance. An inadequate or poorly fitted one can cause great pain. As with boots, it takes time to fit a pack properly. This applies even to frameless packs—they still need to be the right length for your back.
Frames
To hold the load steady and help transfer the weight from the shoulders to the hips, the back of the pack needs some form of stiffening. For loads less than 30 pounds, simple foam padding is adequate, but once the weight exceeds 30 pounds, a more rigid system is needed.
As I said earlier, there are two frame types: external, with the packbag hung on a frame by straps or clips or clevis pins, and internal, which fits inside the fabric of the pack, often completely integrated into it and hidden. The debate centers on which frame best supports a heavy load and which is more stable on rough ground; the answer used to be external for the first and internal for the second. Today, however, the best designs and materials have made the distinction less clear-cut.
For many years now my choice has been internal-frame packs. It’s a couple of decades since I last used an external frame. Internals are more stable than all but a few externals, easier to carry around when you’re not on the trail, and less prone to damage. Some are comfortable with any weight you’re likely to carry. That said, I have a friend who has used a Kelty Tioga external-frame pack for decades and finds it just about perfect. His only complaint is that he can’t replace it with an identical model. Since his stomping grounds are the Colorado Rockies and the Wind River Range and he likes challenging off-trail hikes above the timberline, he’s clearly adapted to the rigidity of the frame.
External Frames
The traditional external frame is made of tubular aluminum alloy and consists of two curved vertical bars to which a number of crossbars are welded. Kelty introduced such frames back in the 1950s and still makes them in barely altered form for their Yukon and Trekker packs. Variations have appeared over the years, such as hourglass-shaped frames and frames made from flexible synthetic materials. External frames are usually not adjustable, though some have frame extensions for carrying larger loads while others telescope and come in different back lengths. Suspension systems are similar to those found on internals. With externals the weight transfers directly through the rigid frame to your hips, so they will handle very heavy loads comfortably as long as the hipbelt is well padded and supportive enough. Because of their rigidity, it’s easy to keep the weight high up and close to your center of gravity, enabling you to walk upright. Also, because the packbag is held away from the back, they allow sweat to dissipate, unlike internal-frame packs, which hug the body. Even so I’ve always found that when I work hard carrying a heavy load, I end up with a sweaty back whatever the type of frame.
THE LIMITS OF EXTERNAL FRAMES
The trail was steep and rough, a direct line up the rocky mountainside. Just below the summit were two bands of rock I had to surmount. Climbing them wasn’t difficult—just easy scrambling—but for a few yards the broken rock was very steep and I needed to steady myself with my hands. The only problem was that the tubes of my external-frame pack towered above my head and pushed my face forward into the slope so I couldn’t look up to see where the trail went. The rigid frame made balancing difficult, too, and I lurched sideways when I took high steps. The situation wasn’t dangerous, just awkward, but the experience was one of the main reasons I soon changed to an internal-frame pack, a design I’ve preferred ever since.
The disadvantages of external frames are balance and stability. External frames do not move with you; on steep descents and when crossing rough ground, they can be unstable and may make walking difficult or even unsafe. They also tend to be bulkier than internal-frame packs, making them awkward for plane, car, and bus travel and difficult to stow in small tents. Their rigidity also makes them more vulnerable to damage, especially on airplanes. My last external frame cracked during airplane baggage handling.
Externals are generally less expensive than internals, though, and some are lighter for similar capacity and load-carrying comfort.
A few external frames are designed to gain the advantages of internals without losing the advantages of externals. They have modified frame shapes, often made from flexible plastic instead of rigid alloy. Kelty makes an hourglass-shaped aluminum frame (Tioga, Super Tioga, and their 50th Anniversary models) that “allow gear to ride close and high,” while the venerable JanSport frames have crossbars attached to the side bars by flexible joints, which, JanSport claims, allow the frames to twist and flex with body movement.
Not having used any of these frames, I can’t comment on how effective they are, but it seems that the key to better balance with an external frame is the hipbelt’s freedom of movement in relation to the pack, plus an increased curvature that molds the frame more closely to the body.
Internal Frames
The basic internal frame consists of two flat aluminum alloy stays running vertically down the pack’s back. This original design, introduced in the late 1960s by Lowe Alpine, addressed the instability of external-frame packs on rugged terrain and the difficulty of designing a frameless pack to carry a heavy load comfortably. The bars, or stays, are usually parallel, though in some designs they form an upright or inverted V and in others an X.
Many internal frames now have flexible plastic framesheets in addition to or instead of stays to give extra rigidity to the pack and prevent hard bits of gear from poking you in the back. There are many variations on the framesheet/parallel stays theme, using aluminum, carbon fiber, po
lycarbonate, thermoplastic, Evazote, and polyethylene. Some packs have single stays down the center of the framesheet, and some have Delrin or titanium rods running down the sides to help transfer the weight to the hipbelt. One (McHale Bayonet) even has a two-part frame—remove the top for a smaller pack. Each pack maker has its own type of internal frame; all, of course, claim theirs can carry heavy loads more comfortably than anything else. The ones I’ve tested over the years—Aarn, Arc’teryx, Gregory, Dana Design, Lowe Alpine, The North Face, Osprey, Jack Wolfskin, and Marmot—all did a pretty good job with moderately heavy loads (45 to 55 pounds). Some—Dana Design, Arc’teryx, Gregory—will handle 60 pounds or more while some lightweight models (ULA P-2) will handle up to 40 pounds.
Whatever the style, internal frames are flexible and with use conform to the shape of the wearer’s back, allowing a body-hugging fit that gives excellent stability.
Because internal frames move with your body and let you pack the weight lower and closer to your back, they are excellent where balance is important, such as when rock scrambling, skiing, and hiking over rough, steep terrain. A disadvantage of this is that you tend to lean forward to counterbalance the low weight. Careful packing with heavy items high up and close to the back is a partial answer when you are walking on a good trail but is no panacea if the pack is poorly designed (see Packing later in this chapter).
Chris Townsend Page 15
