|
|
Post by Coolkat on Sept 19, 2019 5:27:36 GMT -8
Yeah... I admit the title is kinda click-bait but still thought it was worth discussion. I'm making my favorite backpack last one more year before I retire it. So off and on I've been reading here and elsewhere about backpacks. Mine is about 8 years old and I have until next april/may or so before I'm truly in the market. I've been saying that now for about 3 years and I just keep putting it off because I like my system and REI no longer makes my pack. Besides I'm one of those people who don't like change. Over the years I've been lightening my load... 20 degree quilt 1.75lbs (down from 3lbs), tent 2.5lbs (down from 4.5lbs) and my current pack is about 3.2lbs (down from 6lbs) and I've been looking at lighter packs and wondering if I can actually go to something smaller and lighter than 65L and still get 7/8 days. Then I ran across this article. Some of it makes sense but I'm left wondering in the end if the guy is getting kickbacks from Osprey (i say that in jest) or maybe he is just a fan-boy of Osprey or if it's his honest opinion. www.outsideonline.com/2191166/why-you-dont-want-or-need-ultralight-backpack |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 6:30:26 GMT -8
I get 7 to 9 days of gear into my ZPacks ArcBlast.
|
|
zeke
Trail Wise!
Peekaboo slot 2023
Posts: 9,820 
|
Post by zeke on Sept 19, 2019 7:23:58 GMT -8
Several of us use a ULA Circuit (rebeccad, Jazzmom, me, ...) and we manage to get by with the 2.5#s. Still 65L.I don't think I want to try to cram in my food for 7-8 days, along with my gear and clothing, in something less than 55L. I hate having things hanging off the outside of the pack. To me, this just confirms the old adage of "take your gear with you when deciding on a new pack". I'd add food, water, and other such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukpacker on Sept 19, 2019 7:48:44 GMT -8
I get what the Osprey fan is saying and agree, though for me ventilated back systems are not as important as carrying the load as close to my center of gravity as possible. My Osprey Aether 70 pro ,around 4lbs has a rigid frame and carries weights of around 40lbs and more comfortably, my Exped Thunder 70 is about 3.5 lbs and carries around 30-35 lbs just as comfortably but not much more .
I have never found packs lighter than 3.5 lbs tolerable for a weeks backpacking .
Though using a tump line helps make them bearable for me. Nobody else seems to use them any more?
|
|
tigger
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by tigger on Sept 19, 2019 8:45:52 GMT -8
I'm getting a new pack relatively soon since my current pack swallows all my upgraded ultralight stuff so easily. I find it to be a fine line between comfort and weight. I'm very hesitant to go too light on a pack and will side with support/comfort. You start adding 7-9 days worth of food and an ultralight pack just ain't going to cut it, if the weight is cut from the wrong places. I remember trying out the Golite Gust (1lb pack) and finding it ridiculously non-supportive for the gear I had at the time. Crappy hipbelt, very flimsy, and just designed too simply in my opinion. I couldn't use it with more than about 15 lbs in it realistically. It ended up changing ownership to one of our forum members. I'll go for lighter weight materials but I don't think I would sacrifice having a great hipbelt, frame, and shoulder strap/sternum strap system. I'll focus on removing features and using tough/but light materials on it. Good luck in your quest.
|
|
ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 9,217
|
Post by ErnieW on Sept 19, 2019 9:22:44 GMT -8
I don't have a large budget right now so one pack has to do all the jobs. One is carrying the main load for a family of four.
I love my new Osprey Aether 70 AG. Not light but a great pack and very comfortable even with a heavy load.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coolkat on Sept 19, 2019 10:08:33 GMT -8
Thanks everyone so far for your thoughts. I really do appreciate it. zeke, and ukpacker until now had not heard of these packs and will be added to the short list as they both get really good reviews. @idahowalker, sigh... I wish I was there but I don't think my gear is light enough or small enough just yet to make the ArcBlast useful for me. Hopefully someday. ErnieW, I'm sure it's a good pack but that is almost 2lbs heavier than my current pack (3.5lbs) and I'm not willing to go up in weight. tigger, I appreciate your comments and while I'm sure your gear is still lighter than mine I don't think I'm going to feel too guilty if I end up with a pack weighing 3.5lbs but I'm probably not going over that. If you end up with a new pack and remember this discussion I'd be interested in what you decided upon. |
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,017 
|
Post by jazzmom on Sept 19, 2019 10:27:46 GMT -8
A very male perspective.
I'm a 5'2" 57 year-old woman. I don't care that the 5-pound Osprey Ariel has the "ability" to carry 60 pounds. (Does it have a secret magic carpet feature I'm not aware of?) And the claim that the extra weight -- more than double what my pack weighs -- is worth it because the design keeps my back dry... seriously? "Sweat" just isn't anywhere near the top of my hiking problems.
He makes a lot of assumptions and generalizations that he doesn't seem to expect to be questioned. I disagree with a lot of them, including the initial premise, which is that one uses a lighter pack in order to reduce pack weight. The ultralight philosophy isn't about carrying as little weight as possible. It's about carrying only what you actually need. I got my gear weight down, and then chose a pack that carries my gear. I don't need a pack that can carry 60lb; I need one that carries 30lb.
|
|
ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 9,217
|
Post by ErnieW on Sept 19, 2019 11:41:05 GMT -8
ErnieW, I'm sure it's a good pack but that is almost 2lbs heavier than my current pack (3.5lbs) and I'm not willing to go up in weight. Please keep in mind that one of my modes is main hauler for a family of four. I don't think you mentioned this as one of your criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by Coolkat on Sept 19, 2019 12:20:07 GMT -8
Very good point ErnieW. I did/do a similar thing once in a great while. When I took my niece and nephew on their first backpack trip, I took my 23 year old 6lb Kelty Arapaho (104L) and let them use much smaller and lighter packs. Wanted to make sure they didn't hate their first time so I get it. |
|
texasbb
Trail Wise!
Hates chicken
Posts: 1,206
|
Post by texasbb on Sept 19, 2019 14:23:05 GMT -8
I'm a 5'2" 57 year-old woman. I don't care that the 5-pound Osprey Ariel has the "ability" to carry 60 pounds. (Does it have a secret magic carpet feature I'm not aware of?) And the claim that the extra weight -- more than double what my pack weighs -- is worth it because the design keeps my back dry... seriously? "Sweat" just isn't anywhere near the top of my hiking problems. ... I'm a 6'5" 59 year-old man, and I'm no less averse to a 60-lb pack than jazzmom ; And I agree wholeheartedly on the sweat thing. I'll sweat either way, so why bother with a complex system that adds weight and pushes the weight away from my back? |
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 10,739
|
Post by reuben on Sept 19, 2019 14:28:10 GMT -8
It would have been rather difficult, not to mention presumptuous, for him to write from a female perspective. I don't care that the 5-pound Osprey Ariel has the "ability" to carry 60 pounds. This. Just because the pack can carry 60 pounds doesn't mean I have the same ability!  |
|
|
|
Post by cheaptentguy on Sept 19, 2019 14:30:27 GMT -8
Some of you may find this interesting: Dan Becker's video "Why Ultralight Backpacking Doesn't Make Sense (For Most People)." www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qpqzke2y64TL;DR: His main point is that most people are weekend warriors the vast majority of their backpacking time. (As I am) Given that, most people don't necessarily need to travel light for an extended period of time, when a few extra pounds might help them enjoy their weekend trips more. I ended up splitting the difference by going with the Osprey Exos 48, which I was able to get on sale from my locally owned shop, which was important to me. I think it made the most sense for me. (Aside, almost pulled the trigger on a Circuit multiple times.) I do get annoyed at the clickbait titles, as ultimately there a lot of factors that go into what piece of gear makes sense for a person. jazzmom: genuinely wondering why you called that "a very male perspective." Do you see it as the macho "look how much I can carry" type of thing? |
|
franco
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,297
|
Post by franco on Sept 19, 2019 15:06:27 GMT -8
I'd like to have a pack that will carry 60 lbs for me but I am afraid that when not looking it may go a different way.
|
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,017
|
Post by jazzmom on Sept 19, 2019 16:03:05 GMT -8
genuinely wondering why you called that "a very male perspective." Do you see it as the macho "look how much I can carry" type of thing? No, it's things like the assumption that no one can feel a one-pound difference. Might be true for a 200lb guy, but every pound counts when you weigh half that. Or that a 48L pack (e.g. the REI Traverse 48 he mentions) is only big enough to carry sleep gear. I know a lot of women who like that 45-55L pack without being crazy ultralighters. For many of us, our gear is just smaller/shorter and take up a lot less volume. And of course, the assertion that it's worth carrying an extra 3lb for a pack that claims to manage sweat better. Overall, the "message" I got reading it was that we're too focused on weight when thinking about improving our backpacking experience, and instead of thinking about saving two pounds on the weight of our packs, we should carry a heavier/burlier pack and throw in a couple of liters of wine. A lot of us can't afford to be that cavalier about pack weight. |
|
