[pct-l] Packs.....UL Internals vs Externals

[Yoshihiro Murakami]

I have uploaded my opinion of Carson 80 to backcountry.com. The
re-modeled frame pack works well. I can carry   30 Kg or more.
"Hardcore hikers are not bothered by extra pan cakes."

My opinion of Carson 80.
I like JanSport external frame pack very much, although  shortcomings
exist. It is easy to improve and re-model.  The new Carson 80 have
many advantages than older model. The hip-belt and shoulder-belts were
re-designed and fit well, but slightly harder than before. The size of
external frame is smaller than the old D3 frame, but it is too large,
because  I am living in Japan and Japanese mountains are steep.   So,
I had completely re-modeled Carson 80.    In the first place, I had
cut the frame shorter and attached the old D3 joints to the frame. In
the second, I twisted the hinge to fit my waist and sewed the used
insole to the belt, because it was too solid. I also changed the way
of connecting shoulder yoke to slant easily and fit well. And I change
the way of passing the belts, because the buckles easily loosen. I
cannot upload other photos. Please see my HP.
http://psycho01.edu.u-toyama.ac.jp/carson80.html


2010/1/20 Reinhold Metzger <reinholdmetzger at cox.net>:
> Hi gang,
> Could not resist this reply before I depart.
>
> Steel-Eye,
> Nothing wrong with external frame packs, just like there is nothing
> wrong with UL internal frame packs.
> They both have their use and serve a purpose.
> The right pack will depend on the condition of the hiker and the kind of
> hike.
> I have both kinds and the pack I will carry will depend on the kind of
> hike I have in mind.
> For UL speed hiking with minimum gear and comfort the internal will be
> the choice for most hikers.
> However, for the hiker who is used to carrying heavy loads, is in no
> hurry, and wants maximum comfort
> the external likely will be preferred.
> On some of my hikes the heavy load in my external would rip out the
> bottom of a flimsy internal.
> At the same time, a heavy external would be a real drag on my JMT
> fast-packs.
> Sometimes a comfortable 40 lb pack is more comfortable than a 30 lb pack
> that is uncomfortable.
>
> Hardcore hikers are not bothered by a few extra pound.
> Most appreciate the added comfort and just go about their business of
> "hiking their own hike" without
> criticizing other hikers the way they hike.
>
> Say Chuck, you brought up an interesting point with the iron skillet.
> You probably could "knock-out" a bear with that heavy iron skillet.
> Hhhhmmm.....something to think about.
> Oooohhh......forget about it.....it would rip out the bottom of your
> flimsy internal.
> But, if I ever read about an old hiker killing a bear, I will know it
> was you.
>
> Well, got to go now, the Sierra is calling me....it's time for me to
> play in the snow again.
>
> JMT Reinhold
> Your iron skillet packing trail companion
> ---------------------------------------------
> Steele-Eye wrote:
> Whenever I read arguments in favor of old-time, heavy weight hiking gear
> I feel moved to offer an alternative, ultralite opinion. Sometimes the
> freighters argue for tall, five-pound boots; sometimes it’s
> brass-and-steel gas stoves; and sometimes it’s large, full-featured
> double wall tents. Fortunately, I haven’t yet seen anyone argue in favor
> of carrying a cast iron skillet to fry a couple of eight-inch trout they
> intend to catch. Currently, the discussion is about large external-frame
> packs, and I’m beginning to think I’m in an endless game of gear weight
> Whac-A-Mole. I’ve used most of the older pack rigs but, based upon
> experience, I’ve gotten past them. I recently sent the oldest remaining
> relic – a wood and canvas model -- to PCT Mom to display for the
> amusement of her hiker guests. The next-to-oldest model, a welded
> aluminum pack frame, is still occasionally employed for packing trail
> maintenance gear such as chain saws, Grip-Hoists, wire rope, snatch
> blocks, transport chain, and other such heavy rigging jewelry. Even then
> I’ll admit to lashing the gear onto the frame, then trying to con some
> stout youngster into hauling it up the trail. The argument for a big,
> sturdy pack is that it will comfortably carry tremendous loads, but I
> can’t imagine using the terms “comfortable” and “tremendous load” in the
> same sentence relative to a hiker. One problem with a large pack is, if
> the volume is there people tend to fill it with something – anything –
> usually stuff that is unnecessary. One of the worst reasons to do
> something is just because you can. Another problem is, a couple of extra
> or heavy pieces of gear means the pack must be stronger which in itself
> adds more weight. If you add two pounds of tent, etc, the resulting
> total additional load weight could be three, or more, pounds.
> Additionally, your hiking speed will be reduced so more food and water
> must be carried between resupply stops making the pack heavier yet.
> That’s called an exponential progression of weight. An exponential
> regression of weight works just the opposite. When you eliminate or
> reduce the weight of an item you also reduce the weight of the means to
> carry it, and you can then carry it faster and further.
> Steel-Eye
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>



-- 
Sincerely
--------------- --------------------------------------
Hiro    ( Yoshihiro Murakami )
HP:http://psycho01.edu.u-toyama.ac.jp
http://picasaweb.google.co.jp/CompleteWalker/
------------------------------------------------------