ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 9,875
|
Post by ErnieW on Dec 6, 2021 13:15:30 GMT -8
Oh, one thing no one has brought up is external frames breaking. I am assuming that with better materials than we had 40 years ago that’s not so much of a problem anymore. I had issues with straps on my external. I think having the nylon straps ending in a grommet to bolt to the frame caused fraying at the grommets. Plus my external squeaked.
|
|
swiftdream
Trail Wise!
the Great Southwest Unbound
Posts: 543
|
Post by swiftdream on Dec 6, 2021 14:00:30 GMT -8
I can understand the need for a load hauler through my own need to carry 12 liters of water and comfortable camp gear which is more of a want than need like water. I don’t think my load was much more than 80 lbs as a routine as we did this hundreds of times. The terrain was challenging puzzle even without a pack. That and no water kept out the riff raff and there was no water even if they could figure it out. Thousands of artifacts littered the ground, an amazing payoff.
Personally I’ve found the two externals I’ve owned to catch the frame corners on everything, plants, rocks and the erosion of steep terrain, very tippy too. The sacks were set high. Packing a heavy load is a science. The heaviest stuff, water etc right along the spine, not up by shoulders or down by the butt. An Osprey Aether 85 worked well for me there and even with a full load for 3 and 1/2 days I could stand up straight with the beefier hip belt they offer. We got in there. Heavy pack weight is not something as a backpacker to brag about and can be embarrassing on some levels unless you have a very good reason…even then…and that much weight still feels like a pig but at least it is far less likely to murder you in challenging terrain with an internal. Too much experience to go backwards here. Resupply is harder but we take far less water now, resupply more often with lighter packs. I no longer carry 80 lbs. I intend to keep getting out often for the foreseeable future. Joints just be cared for. Lol
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,911
|
Post by BigLoad on Dec 6, 2021 14:34:17 GMT -8
I had issues with straps on my external. This is an interesting issue. Strap designs on classic externals were primitive (i.e. no shaping, no secondary adjustment like load lifters). I assume some eventually added some curvature to the straps, but I haven't really paid attention.
|
|
|
Post by darthmusturd on Dec 6, 2021 15:02:30 GMT -8
“ Honestly, I don't really see what the big fuss is over 5#'s on a pack” I had to laugh at this. At my size and age, my max pack weight is about 38 lbs. Max comfortable about 30. 5# is about 17% of that, and represents 3 days food, give or take. I have spent a lot of effort and not a little money at dropping my base weight by 5 pounds, so that I can continue to do week-long trips. The significance of a few pounds one way or the other does vary a lot from person to person, but ultimately it will all come down to food 😜 As a young man, you may underestimate the ravages of time. When I was in my 20s I could, and did, carry a 50# pack. It may be part of why my feet hate me now. Still—as Jazzmom said, HYOH. If you have found a pack that works for you and is comfortable at the weights you regularly carry, you don’t need our validation. Oh, one thing no one has brought up is external frames breaking. I am assuming that with better materials than we had 40 years ago that’s not so much of a problem anymore. External frames breaking? I hadn't heard of that issue as of yet. I thought external frames were supposed to be more durable since they're often made of sturdier materials. I knew that some of the cheaper models had issues with grommets and such breaking. Are you talking about frames bending and such?
|
|
driftwoody
Trail Wise!
Take the path closer to the edge, especially if less traveled
Posts: 14,974
|
Post by driftwoody on Dec 6, 2021 16:50:38 GMT -8
I have spent a lot of effort and not a little money at dropping my base weight by 5 pounds Bottom line is, it makes no sense to carry a heavy external frame pack unless it has specific advantages in certain situations which almost always mean an extraordinarily heavy load or something that simply can't be carried with a frameless pack.
|
|
|
Post by plaidman on Dec 7, 2021 12:10:20 GMT -8
The thing about external frame packs (to me) is that I always think of them as being packs with removable bags. Though, the ruck style is almost universally better. You have more space for bigger things. Plus, you can always use pack sacks or dry bags to act as separate pouches if need be. That's actually usually easier to organize, at least in my opinion. So, you started this thread with the question, "I was wondering why I can't find many records at all of people using external frame packs for backpacking", which is what we've tried to answer. But if don't understand or agree with the reasons we've given, I don't see much point in belaboring the point to death. If *you* prefer an external frame pack then who cares what we think? HYOH. That would be me. Plaidman Happy with my Tioga
|
|
rangewalker
Trail Wise!
Agitate, organize and educate.
Posts: 1,029
|
Post by rangewalker on Dec 7, 2021 18:58:47 GMT -8
I left external frame packs in '82 with an early Gregory Shasta. When it sunstroked and all together wore out I replaced it with a more modern Gregory Shasta. Since 2012 I now keep 3 other internals, all Osprey for seasonal and depending on trip length. Also if I need a canister. That said I have always kept an external frame freighter type. Now Alps but they have been Camp Trails and Dana K2 Flatbeds. They are around to hauling water caches and equipment. [citizen science or wilderness surveys] the Alps has every modern nod in suspension that an external can wear and is dialed in to me. Still a pain. From '75 to '87, airlines trashed 3 external frame packs in my work travels. Work portages with external frames carrying swag, blasters, radios, and survey equipment destroyed any love I may of had for external frames in the 70's. At 68, if I could get by with ultra-light packs, I would do it in a heartbeat. How did you like the Aether overall? The pack I was looking at before this was the Aether 100. I haven't heard bad things about it. Ultimately I heard that Osprey sold a few days ago, so that convinced me to go to bullpacs. I have a 12 year old Osprey Argon 110 that is only for winter bulky stuff backpacking and when I had a friend that needed a sherpa for a few years. I call it the #@&*^ng mothership when I do not think it can hear me. It has the same framing, Airscape, as my two other Ospreys. They just fit me best.
|
|
|
Post by bluefish on Dec 8, 2021 5:19:43 GMT -8
I've been a fan of internal frames since the 70's when I bought a Caribou Mountaineering pack from the factory in Chico, Ca. . It supplanted a Kelty frame that hauled tools and rolls of barbed wire on a platform for work, the bag going back on for play. I still have an early 80's Jansport D-3 to haul my float tube, fins, pump and fishing gear on backcountry brook trout trips. Other than that, if you like hauling weight and have the stamina for it, go for it. We couldn't have gone the places we've gone in recent years without dropping enormous amounts of weight. Heck, I use to wear a Russian great coat on winter trips that weighed as much as my summer pack does now. The bonus is having great gear that readily fits bike panniers. My main winter pack is now an Osprey Atmos. It's vey comfortable and fits a zero degree down bag and other cold weather essentials. Just enough tie spots to carry snowshoes easily.
|
|
|
Post by 1holegrouper on Dec 8, 2021 13:39:07 GMT -8
My first post. However, I'd like to add; It is like hiking footwear. Some wear running shoes and some wear boots and some wear sandals. This is such an individual thing. With strong and valid opinions on each and every side! Generally you want to pack as light as you can. Decide what your judgements are on what to pack and why, etc. Also, the pack choice is sometimes made for your type of hiking, trekking.
That said some ultralight packs, whether internal or external frame, may make your load feel like it weighs more than it does. Then the 'next' person will swear that said pack is perfect and the best pack they ever had. And to them it is. Read on any packs you consider what their weight recommendations are. This is a good place to start and usually means that they designed their packs comfort up to that weight and that going beyond it might cause discomfort. It's a journey for all of us.
I'm the rare one I guess. I've been through the gammut and personally like an external frame but I have internal frame packs as well. I personally like Kifaru (Duplex lite frame and various bags) and Hill People Gear (Umlindi II and Ute). They are not generally used by backpackers but by hunters and back country adventurers. But for me at least, I can put 25+ total pounds on a 6 pound Kifaru external framed pack and it feels like nothing and at the end of the 70 mile week I'm not sore or fatigued. I can do the same with 20-30 pounds on a 5 pound HPG pack. This is why my _____ brand dyneema fabric ultra light internal frame pack now stays home. I do use it in hot weather where I don't need to pack so much. Sure, it weighs less but it makes me feel it as if it were a heavy pack as compared to the other beefier packs. But, like I said, this is just me.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Dec 8, 2021 16:39:41 GMT -8
Rings up another point: packs are worn such that they’re in effect clothing and must fit as such, possibly only second to footwear fit in importance to a comfortable and safe trip.
And as with footwear: circumstances do impact the selection. Steep ice and running shoes just won’t do it. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by swmtnbackpacker on Dec 11, 2021 17:44:54 GMT -8
Internal frames have “ruled” since the ‘90s being closer to the body, though foam channels can help with heat. Probably a little marketing in there too, but they were originally for climbers to mostly haul up.
Interestingly some manufacturers have added back air space with a pseudo-external frame like Osprey (from regular gear to light) and made to order Zpacks (ultralight). The latter even has a model with just air space.
|
|
|
Post by bluefish on Dec 12, 2021 5:07:59 GMT -8
Type of trail makes a difference, too. Crossing blowdowns, fast water crossings, lots of overhangs, sketchy sidehills are all better handled with a pack that is closer and conformed to your body. Less weight carried is also a plus. Being in phenomenal shape and able to carry anything anywhere is a huge plus. I use to pride myself on being the King of Mules, now I'm just the Prince of As.... Getting way older, having medical issues certainly makes efficient and UL a must, not just a choice .
|
|
|
Post by 1holegrouper on Dec 12, 2021 9:09:28 GMT -8
For rock climbing there may be packs specifically designed for that activity. If not, I would look at the Six Moon Designs Swift X with the Flight Jacket harness. This pack is light and will move with you as if it was bolted to your back. I don't have one yet but am considering it for short Summer overnights. For Summer I usually use the following; ULA Catalyst backpack I go pretty light during hot weather, not extreme, but I am usually going a longer distance and carrying 20-25 pounds. In the Winter I'm not going such long distances so I use my Kifaru Duplex Lite frame/ Gnargali bag backpack. The pack itself is heavy compared to the ULA but I have not found anything as comfortable. Its weight justifies itself to me due to its ability to make its weight and what is in it disappear compared to other packs I've used.
It's all about what you are doing, weather conditions, your criteria for comfort and convenience, conditioning, etc. This is something we all will, eventually, dial in to our personal tastes and conditions.
|
|
|
Post by darthmusturd on Dec 13, 2021 11:13:13 GMT -8
Internal frames have “ruled” since the ‘90s being closer to the body, though foam channels can help with heat. Probably a little marketing in there too, but they were originally for climbers to mostly haul up. Interestingly some manufacturers have added back air space with a pseudo-external frame like Osprey (from regular gear to light) and made to order Zpacks (ultralight). The latter even has a model with just air space. That was one of the reasons I was so confused. I immediately think of the Osprey Aether. Isn't it farther away from the back anyhow? That is one of the biggest reasons to use an internal frame that I'm hearing so far, being that they're closer to the back. Why not just go full external frame? Definitely do want to look at the Aether 100 in the future if I ever decide to get an internal frame pack.
|
|
trinity
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,896
Member is Online
|
Post by trinity on Dec 13, 2021 11:20:35 GMT -8
Why not just go full external frame? This question has been answered multiple times by now. Have you ever backpacked with either? If you don't trust the reasons that have been given, perhaps you could trust the experience of the members of this forum. Many or most of us grew up using external-frame packs. None of us are using them as our primary pack now. This is not because of fads or availability, it is because internal-frame packs serve our needs as backpackers far better. Your needs may well be different, so HYOH.
|
|