The 58 can carry a bear cannister sideways in the pack, that was what did it for me. And I think it was only 2 or 3 oz more.Originally Posted by brswan
Thanks for that information. This may sway my choice as well.
I recently bought the Hyperlite 2400 Windrider. It's on the lighter side and comes with hip pockets. I bought after-market shoulder strap pockets. What was very important to me was being able to reach water bottles being held in the side mesh pockets while walking. I also tried the OutThere AS-3 pack and the Ultimate Direction Fastpack 45 and I wasn't able to get bottles out of the Fastpack and I liked the OutThere pack and could get the bottles but the Hyperlite was lighter.
Yep. I love my Virga
I've got a Exos 48 that I love and I rarely use because it's way more room than I need for my particular gear choices for 2 to 5 day trips when it's not winter. The last 4-day backcountry ski trip I use my Exos 48 and that was pretty much the first time it had ever been full. It was also almost 35 lbs on day one and it was notably more comfortable after a couple days of food was used up. For many people, these trampoline suspension systems seem to work optimally on loads 30 lbs or lighter and start to be pretty uncomfortable at much over 35 lbs.
I would suggest that if your intent is 3-season use and you lean toward being a minimalist, then 48 L is ample. If, on the other hand you don't spend significant time dialing in your minimal gear, you will probably be happier with a 58 L.
If I were planning on hiking the AT tomorrow (if tomorrow were spring), I would gleefully take my Exos 48 because it is fantastically comfortable, quite reasonably light weight, and a good size with enough room to spare for some longer re-supply gaps. Actually, if I were to start the AT tomorrow for a winter thru, I'd still take my Exos 48.
Another main-stream pack you can try out at REI and to consider might be the new REI Flash 45, which is a pretty well put together and affordable pack as long as your torso isn't longer than 20 inches. Their large is just a 1/2" to small for my 20.5" torso.
Last edited by nsherry61; 10-19-2017 at 16:28.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
Fit is more important than size. Anything in the ~2lb range is fine, but you need one with the right torso length.
I hike on a budget and enjoy looking for inexpensive gear to try out. I found two 2.5 lbs packs this fall on Amazon. I've only used them each for only a couple days but everything went fine.
I'd love to hear the community's thoughts on these bags - especially on how long you may think they'll last. I find both comfortable, adjustable, and large enough for my 2-4 day trips. Might not be suitable though for weeks in the bush...
The Klymit Motion 60: got this on sale for $99. Weighs just above 2.5 lbs. Stitching and design seems good quality. Buckles seem a little lightweight. Very comfy hip belt with FOUR pull-downs. It uses an air bladder frame that seems weird but wears quite comfortably. Link - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JBH40IQ...a-315750815255
GoBackTrail Backpack: $58 dollars and really 2.5 lbs. This is a roll-top bag that is small but expands to a claimed 50L. I can easily get 20 lbs in. Straps and hip belt aren't as comfy as the Klymit. Seems similar quality though. Link - https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01MD...qAL&ref=plSrch
Take it or leave it. Just though I'd share some other inexpensive options.
Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
If you can afford spending $300, go for a ZPacks Arc Haul and give it the 30 day trial. Return it if it doesn’t work for you, but once you dial in the perfect fit, it is a great pack with top quality construction.
I've had the ULA Circuit for two years now with no problems and love it. I took the staves out with the back foam and also from the hip belt and at 20# it's almost not there.
You can also check out the Elemental Horizons Kalais. I like mine.
You could try Outlander Lightweight Travel Hiking Backpack. It weights only 0.5 Pounds.
It is available on Amazon. But, According to your age, you should take less items in your backpack. This is the only way to minimize your pressure. Because most of the backpack weight is less than 1 pound and they cannot minimize the overall weight of items.
I really like my EH Kalais but the new versions put this pack out of the ultralight category.
I used the Zpacks Arc Blast on a thru hike this year. It was okay but I was improperly fitted. On Friday I will be receving what I consider a next-gen backpack, only one other hiker had it on the AT to my knowledge. At less than 10 oz paired with my sub 8lb base weight, it should be a good fit. Will post photos on this thread when I recieve it & links to it's website.
stay tuned...
Inb4 Palante.
AT: 695.7 mi
Benton MacKaye Trail '20
Pinhoti Trail '18-19'
@leonidasonthetrail https://www.youtube.com/c/LeonidasontheTrail
I might have went with Zpacks, but I found the Hyperlite Mountain Gear Southwest 3400 on campsaver.com. I was able to use a 20 percent off coupon code, so the choice was easy. I used it for my 72 mile, 5 day trip on the AT through Roan Highlands last week. It worked so well that I can't wait to use it again. So light. The shoulder straps bothered me a little to start, but worked great once I got used to it. I am no 25 year old, but going on 37, so not too old either. Was an ultra runner until 2 years ago. Put on about 40 pounds, so kind of out of shape, but haven't completely lost fitness.
Things change and get lighter . I don’t think a pack over 16oz as ultralight.
Thom
Haven't seen the new version. Too bad they made it heavier. I guess I will try to keep my old one going as log as possible.
Shots fired
Needn't be controversial.
"I don't think..." means it's a personal opinion, and one which is shared by quite a few UL folks who understand that the term UL actually has a definition, which is base weight of 10 lbs or less. And there is also SUL (5 lbs or less) and XUL (3 lb or less).
A lot of people relatively new (and no so new!) to backpacking don't realize that there is such a website as BPL dedicated to this very small niche, or that it is even possible to achieve such low base weights, and many who think that is stupid, dangerous or ridiculous to aim for target weights when selecting gear.
There is, admittedly, some silliness involved when people start putting stuff in their pants pockets to count it as "carried" and therefore not part of pack weight on their spreadsheets. And it verges on dangerous — or at least uncomfortable and un-fun — when people cut back on sleeping bag or clothing in marginal weather conditions.
However, many people who have reached this point in their pursuit of backpacking have a ton of experience and a skill set to match. And they will deliberately do many shorter test trips in crappy conditions to make sure their finely honed kit will get the job done.
Getting back to Cheyou's point, since by definition UL is 10 lbs base pack weight (minus consumables... food, water, fuel), technically it doesn't matter how you get there. If your pack weighs 5 lbs and the rest weighs 5 lbs, you're still UL, although it will be extremely difficult to achieve a 10 lb base when half that amount includes an unnecessarily heavy backpack. If you're doing a long hike in the desert and carrying 8lbs of food and 14lbs of water and your pack weighs 32lbs, you're still by definition UL.
What you will find these days is that most UL aficionados (including Ryan Jordan, who started BPL and published a book on it) have come to the conclusion that labels and target weights are counterproductive goals in the pursuit of lighter pack weight, and that it is better to simply choose the lightest gear for the task at hand, and the pack ends up at whatever weight is needed. However, there is probably some truth to the notion that the "UL movement" is responsible for the backpacking industry's general shift toward lighter weight gear.
So if one is doing a desert hike with food and water weights such as those in the above example, a sturdier (read: heavier!) backpack might be necessary to comfortably carry that load, while that same backpack would (from a UL mindset) be overkill for the typical AT hiker carrying 5lbs of food and 2lbs of water.
My own approach is to not worry about what other people carry. If people want to or are happy carrying bunch of heavy stuff it's no concern of mine, but if they ask I am happy to share my perspectives on UL backpacking.
But it is fair to say that there are a lot of people who post on WB asking "How can I lighten my pack?" and absolutely none interested in the reverse.
The Five Basic Principles of Going Lighter ~ Cam "Swami" Honan of OZ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote