[pct-l] buying new light weight pack or using one of my older plastic or aluminum frame packs?

[CHUCK CHELIN]

Good morning, Timothy,

It’s difficult to say for sure what the original intent was for something
like an external frame pack but pack frames long have been used to carry
hard, sharp, and/or lumpy loads that would be painful if carried in a
non-frame pack.  Even today I use an old aluminum pack frame to carry
hardware for PCTA trail maintenance projects – carrying things like
chainsaws, fuel cans, rigging hardware, etc. things that don’t travel well
just dumped into a sack.



Early back-packers also carried lumpy stuff such as gas stoves, canned food,
and maybe even a cast iron skillet so they just attached a versatile sack to
their existing pack frame.  If the load was heavy the most common solution
was to add a tump line from the pack to the hiker’s forehead.  Sometime
later when the idea emerged to transfer a share of the load to a hip belt
rather than to a tump line, the external pack frame was a good way to do so.
Most recently it has been found that minimal internal structure in the form
of stays is also OK to transfer load to a belt.



My solution is to reduce the base weight to a point where a simple no-frame
pack, without a belt can carry everything in comfort.  To do so I had to
sacrifice and leave the chainsaw, the canned food, and the cast iron skillet
at home.  The traditional – read “heavy” – hikers rarely can live with the
option of not using a belt, and by extension some form of stiff structure
in, or around, the pack.



Steel-Eye

Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT – 1965

http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye

http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09


On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's my understanding that internal frame packs were developed primarily
> for
> mountaineering where having your center of gravity closer to your core is
> more important.  They also usually allow a weight savings. External frames
> are fine for improved trails like the PCT as long as your not planning on
> prolonged bushwhacking.The chief advantage of external frame packs is
> ventilation.  I'm now seeing some hybrid internal frames that mimic
> externals in creating space from the back for ventilation purposes.
>
> I agree that the chief issue is weight and then volume; not just the weight
> of the pack itself, but what you're putting into it.
> I bought a Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus in '09, but found it uncomfortable
> and opted for my old Mountainsmith Ghost, which is 12 oz heavier.  I hiked
> into Warner Springs with Evan who's Mariposa was straining backwards and he
> was miserable.
>
> But here's the deal.  I was carrying a base pack of over 18 pounds.  The
> pack is rated for 20 pounds.  Now I LOVE this pack.  Why? My base pack is
> now under 9 pounds  and the volume has similarly been reduced allowing the
> pack to be packed correctly.
>
> But, by the time you hit Big Bear you'll have trail legs and will have
> adjusted to carrying whichever pack is on your back.  A caveat, though.
>  For
> us older hikers just strengthening the muscles and having them reach
> optimal
> condition still leaves tendons as a potential problem; that should be a
> consideration and argues more strongly for us frail ,elderly types to
> lighten up.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>