narrowing ultralight pack choices down....ULA and???

[House of Payne]

After chatting it up a bit with some of the pack choices I had originally made, it seems as if they are still considered too heavy for ultralight standards. So, that said I'm looking at the ULA packs and having strong considerations with the catalyst and circuit. I also have heard go lite is to stay away from. Any other advice?? Staying around 3 lb , 4200 cu in +/-

[wcgornto]

I thru hiked with the Six Moon Designs Starlyte. It worked great for the hike and still serves me well. It weighs around 30 oz. with an aluminum stay loop.

http://www.sixmoondesigns.com/packs....category_id=11

The Starlyte is a top loader pack. They make a similar panel loader pack called the Traveler.

[royalusa]

ULA is a good choice. But with that being said, your pack should be one of the last things you buy. Have you bought your tent, bag, pad,etc, yet so that you really know what your pack requirements (cu in, carrying limit, etc) are? I haven't been following all of your threads, so I might be behind.

[ScottP]

IMO...
Zpacks are the best ultralight packs.

ULA are the best lightweight packs

Opsrey are the best traditional packs.

All good gear, different niches.

Posting a gearlist will help, as will knowing when/where you're hiking.

Do you have an inflatable or a foam pad?
Down or synthetic bag?
Use a bladder or bottles?

[HiKen2011]

ULA is a good choice. But with that being said, your pack should be one of the last things you buy. Have you bought your tent, bag, pad,etc, yet so that you really know what your pack requirements (cu in, carrying limit, etc) are? I haven't been following all of your threads, so I might be behind.

As royalusa said buy it last, that being said I'm a fan of Osprey

[Dogwood]

ULA are the best lightweight packs - ScottP

LOL! So, what now a 18 0z 3200 cubic inch pack like the ULA CDT or the 3 lb ULA 4200 cuibic inch Catalyst are not UL anymore? What, are they incredibly heavy?, compared to what? - AIR? to warrant upping their wt class from UL to just light wt? Ridiculous! Are SMD, MLD, GoLite, Gossamer Gear backpacks, etc now considered JUST light wt backpacks by your standard?

So, next yr when I'm hiking with a plastic 4 mil thickness Heftie CinchSack with a Cord as shoulder straps as my backpack are Joe's ZPacks also going to be deemed light wt because the CinchSack weighs less than Joe's Cuben packs? Ridiculous!

It's not UL unless it's the lightest of the UL? UL ridiculousness! Is that a word?

Zpacks rightly deserves recognition for designing a UL Cuben backpack that is minimalist in its basic design but offering add-on options and Zpacks makes it available NOT at astronomical prices! but they have competion from Mountain Laurel Designs, a customized McHale, or Cilo cuben fiber backpack!, just to name a few!

I'm not trying to pick on you ScottP but not everyone who goes UL, and I am an ULer, deems something as the BEST all around UL gear ONLY BY BASING THAT DECISION ON GEAR WT ALONE!

[Wags]

maybe he's sayign that b/c he owns a zpack pack. i do, and i love mine.
maybe he's saying "UL" b/c my zpack pack weighs 4 ozs. which is a bit less than the 18 of the ohm or cdt or w/e that is.

in fact, it was $133 to my door. much, much cheaper than either the ULA or the Osprey. it sounds like you are trying to pick on scottp.

[Dogwood]

Um, my ULA Conduits(CDT) at 18 oz cost $125 delivered to the front door.

Wags, the distinction I was getting in ScottP's post is that an 18 oz backpack is not UL anymore. It's only light wt according to what I got out of his post. The ULA pack is in a separate niche from a Zpack backpack - isn't that what he wrote? Zpacks is in an UL category. ULA and ALL those other backpack manufacturers I mentioned produce ONLY light wt heavier backpacks. According to that reasoning then ALL those other hiking gear companies I mentioned also manufacture light wt backpacks and NOT UL backpacks because Zpacks is the UL standard.

I'm not hyping ULA packs or any of those other backpack manufacturers and I'm not debasing ZPacks(read my posts again concerning ZPacks). I'm just trying to get at the mentality that leads to the belief where an 18 oz 3200 cube pack is not considered UL anymore.

[Zeno Marx]

is there anywhere to see a picture of the ULA Circuit aluminum stay? Also the specs, like grade of aluminum, dimensions, etc? I realize it would be easiest to see a pack, but that isn't possible right now. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

[kayak karl]

I'm just trying to get at the mentality that leads to the belief where an 18 oz 3200 cube pack is not considered UL anymore.

18 oz. pack is NOT UL, but it is light. i know change is hard isn't it.

[ScottP]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...w=1117&bih=696

[restless]

18 oz. pack is NOT UL, but it is light. i know change is hard isn't it.

Over the years it seems like the definition of lightweight and ultralight and uberultralight and superduperuberultralight keep changing. I propose a new term...SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU! It seems that while ultralight gear is no more expensive than other products on the marketplace, it does appear that there is a never ending quest for the next lightweight thing and the pursuit of owning it. The ULA is not as light as some other packs, but it aint a 6lb pack either (remember when everyone had a wetdream over a 3lb pack?) I have had mine for over 6 years, and have used it on numerous outing. It is still my go to pack for hikes. Now, mind you, if you have the money, time and competitive edge, sure...go for something lighter. Just enjoy trying to get off that trail when it continously sucks you and your wallet in. Just sayin'...

[Wags]

that's not all you said. you also said "or the 3 lb ULA 4200 cuibic inch Catalyst are not UL anymore?"

no, 3 lbs for a pack is not UL. not when you have guys like bear the dog with a 3.5 lb total pack weight.

i was unaware that the cdt was so cheap. that is a nice pack for $135...

[skinewmexico]

I think I'd have to disagree with you too Dogwood. Z-Packs (and several others) have kind of upped the bar for strength and weight. Technology moves on. I have a hard time thinking of any of my ULA packs as UL anymore. They're my robust, going out in the rocks and cactus packs. But I see the point you're trying to make too.

[kayak karl]

Over the years it seems like the definition of lightweight and ultralight and uberultralight and superduperuberultralight keep changing. I propose a new term...SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU! It seems that while ultralight gear is no more expensive than other products on the marketplace, it does appear that there is a never ending quest for the next lightweight thing and the pursuit of owning it. The ULA is not as light as some other packs, but it aint a 6lb pack either (remember when everyone had a wetdream over a 3lb pack?) I have had mine for over 6 years, and have used it on numerous outing. It is still my go to pack for hikes. Now, mind you, if you have the money, time and competitive edge, sure...go for something lighter. Just enjoy trying to get off that trail when it continously sucks you and your wallet in. Just sayin'...

LOL why are you quoting me and saying this? Just sayin'.

[Dogwood]

18 oz. pack is NOT UL, but it is light. i know change is hard isn't it. - KK

I like change! I just don't like it when folks start making what IMO amounts to unfair pack comparisons! Lets compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples! UL GEAR DOES NOT SOLELY exists based on WEIGHT alone! at least in my mind. I take into account such issues as price, function(features, etc), comfort, longevity, durability in different hiking environbments, etc. I also try to compare like gear with like gear. In this case backpack comparisons are being made. I find it much fairer and more objective to consider and compare packs with like volumes, features, durability, ride, load handling ability, etc. In other words, compare packs in the same category based on the additional factors I just mentioned.

I'll make the argument that an 18 0z backpack is INDEED UL when taking into account these additional factors. I think it extremely unfair and misleading to say someone's pack is UL because it only weighs 4 oz compared to an 18 oz pack without mentioning the volume of that 4 oz pack compared to the 18 oz pack, without comparing the stock features of each pack, comparing the load handling ability of each pack, without comparing the durability of each pack, without mentioning the diffeernt packs main body materials, etc! It's EASY to make assumptions about what constitutes UL gear when comparing gear WHICH IS NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY! I see so often in the UL community, which I'm a part of, this notion that what constitutes UL is based on the lowest wt of a particular piece of gear WITHOUT REGARD to that gear being in the same category, with the same features, durability, volume, function, etc. when making comparisons with other gear.

For example, IMO, a much fairer comparison would be to campare one of ZPacks 32 Blast Dyneema X packs with the ULA CDT Dyneema packs which have the same volume, similiar load handling ability, I assume like durability(I don't yet own a Cuben pack), function, and many of the same features, etc. The ULA does have hip belt pockets though which some hikers, even ULers, might find convenient! And, of course both pack manufacturers offer add-on options! When taking the bare bones base wts of these two packs taking into account those mentioned factors we are now comparing a pack that weighs about 13 oz with a pack that weighs 17 oz! That's a fairer comparison, at least in my mind!

There is a lot of short cutting/fudging/incomplete stories/scenarios that can go unmentioned by ULers that fail to take into account such things in our eager quest to publicize UL gear wts!!! This is exacberated by some gear manufacturers applying such terms as UL in their marketing strategies.

In regards to a 3lb ULA 4200 cube Catalyst not being UL please provide a list as to what gear manufacturers produce a lighter wt pack with like volume, features, load handling characteristics, durabilty, comfort, etc! IMO, you make a BIG mistake when taking gear wt out of context if these other factors aren't considered. Pros/cons to many things and I think that applies to hiking gear too.

[kayak karl]

I'll make the argument that an 18 0z backpack is INDEED UL when taking into account these additional factors. I think it extremely unfair and misleading to say someone's pack is UL because it only weighs 4 oz compared to an 18 oz pack without mentioning the volume of that 4 oz pack compared to the 18 oz pack, without comparing the stock features of each pack, comparing the load handling ability of each pack, without comparing the durability of each pack, without mentioning the diffeernt packs main body materials, etc!

why would an UL pack need more volume or carry more weight? the theory behind UL is light and less. your right you CAN'T compare a 4 oz. pack to an 18 oz. pack. one is UL and the other isn't
PS i carry a go-lite pinnacle.

[Dogwood]

why would an UL pack need more volume or carry more weight? the theory behind UL is light and less. KK

Right.

your right you CAN'T compare a 4 oz. pack to an 18 oz. pack. one is UL and the other isn't KK

I think you might have missed my point. The 4 oz pack is not the same volume, has the same features, has the same durability, etc or is in the same category as the 18 oz pack! The 4 oz pack is an UL pack for the category it's in. The larger volumed 18 oz pack may also be an UL pack for the category it's in.

It's kind of like me who hikes in UL trail runners who wears a size 14 eeee wide shoe. Another hiker who elects to wear the same model and brand UL trail runner but has size 9 feet in normal width. Are now my size 14 eeee UL trail runners no longer considered UL trail runners? I'd say that's not the case.

[kayak karl]

why would an UL pack need more volume or carry more weight? the theory behind UL is light and less. KK

Right.

your right you CAN'T compare a 4 oz. pack to an 18 oz. pack. one is UL and the other isn't KK

I think you might have missed my point. The 4 oz pack is not the same volume, has the same features, has the same durability, etc or is in the same category as the 18 oz pack! The 4 oz pack is an UL pack for the category it's in. The larger volumed 18 oz pack may also be an UL pack for the category it's in.

It's kind of like me who hikes in UL trail runners who wears a size 14 eeee wide shoe. Another hiker who elects to wear the same model and brand UL trail runner but has size 9 feet in normal width. Are now my size 14 eeee UL trail runners no longer considered UL trail runners? I'd say that's not the case.

you drinking the water where you live?? LOL. i give up. your right. go hike. have a good time. maybe ill see you in the barrens some time

[Lint]

Mountain Laurel Designs makes some of the best packs out there. I carried their Exodus on the PCT and AT, and it survived both thru hikes just fine. Now I have the Prophet and it's amazingly well built. It's already been said, but you need to figure out what you're going to put in your pack before you buy one. I have an 8 lb baseweight, so these little rucksack style packs are perfect for me. Chop off the hipbelt and all the extras and I get mine down to 11 ounces.

ULA makes some fantastic packs, but Mountain Laurel Designs are my current favorite. There is no perfect pack, but after 7 thru hikes I'm finally narrowing it down to MLD.