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

[Reinhold Metzger]

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