Well, I don't know if one review can really dispel anything, let alone a myth, but it sounds impressive, anyway.
BACKGROUND:
In my search for the ultimate lightweight pack, I've asked some pack makers (including Dana Gleason) why they don't make a high-tech ultralight pack. The answer invariably revolves around the notion that a heavy-duty frame carries a load better than a lighter frame, in the words of Dana Gleason, "...always concentrated on the frame, figuring that a good frame will carry weight better than a very light pack with an inadequate frame."
So, unfortunately, it seems that packs are typically made with the erroneous underlying assumptions that (1) everyone wants to carry a lot of weight and (2) that light packs have inadequate frames.
My quest is to find (and promote the creation of ) the ultimate, hi-tec ultralight pack that is intelligently engineered to accommodate ultralight packers and which gives support comparable to the traditional, "bombproof" packs - up to 35 pounds.
Kudos to companies like Mountainsmith (Mountainlight series), Lowe Alpine (Alpine Attack series) and Kelty (White Cloud & White Phantom), who are attempting to fill that market demand.
The review here contrasts four packs. Two packs (Bridger & Finesse) are of the traditional pack construction genre and are built "bombproof" and designed to carry the kitchen sink. The third pack (Flyte) has a larger volume capacity but due to minimizing bells & whistles and thru use of lighter materials, is just as light as the Bridger and Finesse, and the fourth pack (Mountainlight) is somewhat revolutionary and was specifically designed for the ultralight packer.
The goal here is to compare, contrast, and rate the performance of the lightweight packs compared to the traditionally built heavier packs.
----------------------------------------------------
THE PACKS:
Dana Designs Bridger (4000 cu in, 4 lbs 10 oz)
versus
Osprey Finesse - w/Vector 2 (3600 cu in, 4 lbs 8 oz)
versus
Osprey Flyte - w/Vector 1 (4400 cu in, 4 lbs 4 oz)
versus
Mountainsmith Mountainlight 4000 (4000 cu in, 2 lbs 4 oz)
----------------------------------------------------
THE REVIEWER:
Charles - 5 foot 9 inches, 165 pounds,
torso size 19 1/2 to 20 inches
----------------------------------------------------
THE REVIEW ( with ranking of each pack, in each category ):
I loaded each pack with the same gear and packed each exactly the same way. I carried each pack several times over a two mile stretch of Cascade Mountain foothills (significant ups and downs) and experimented along the way with different adjustments and tensioning approaches.
Headroom:
1. Flyte & Finesse
3. Mountainlight
4. Bridger
All four offer adequate headspace such that you can tilt your head back without hitting the pack, but it's obvious that the design of the Finesse & Flyte had better engineering.
Sizing:
1. Bridger
2. Mountainlight, Flyte & Finesse
The Bridger has an adjustable "Killer B" suspension (exactly the same as the popular Dana Bomb Pack), thus allowing a range of torso sizes to get a "perfect" fit by moving the shoulder harness up or down as well as being able to angle each individual shoulder pad to fit the angle of your shoulder. The Mountainlight also allows some up/down movement of the shoulder pads. The Bridger, Finesse, and Flyte have a hip belt which is movable up or down, in order to accommodate a wider range of torso sizes as well as hip belt placement preferences.
The Fit:
1. Mountainlight
2. Flyte & Finesse
4. Bridger
The Mountainlight fit me perfectly right out of the box. It has ample adjustment points to ensure that weight can be distributed and redistributed comfortably. It has two sets of snugger straps attached at the lower portion of the pack. The lowest one attaches the pack to the belt and is for snugging the pack around the hips (this feature would work much better with a more substantial belt - the belt is so flimsy it is easily pulled away from your body - and rendered less effective - if you tug on this strap too much.) There is another strap above that one which snuggers the pack into the lumbar region of your back. On each side of the pack are two compression straps to secure and compact the load. The pack has two well positioned and nicely functional load lifter straps on top of the pack and has a very substantial, well-positioned and comfortable lumbar pad.
The lumbar pad on the Mountainlight is positioned a little lower than I am used to and it took some time to become accustomed to it, but now I like it a lot. Contrarily, the lumbar on the Finesse is positioned higher than I'm used to and I'm still getting used to it, but it's not uncomfortable. Main thing is that neither pack hurts my back - not true of the Bridger. The lumbar on the Bridger isn't substantial enough to stablize the pack in one position, thus it rides down my back and ultimately puts too much pressure on my lower back and hips. The Flyte is similar to the Finesse, although the lumbar lump seems a little lower, yet still comfortable.
Suspension:
1. Flyte & Finesse
3. Bridger
4. Mountainlight
The Bridger, Finesse, and Flyte all have substantial, rigid suspensions while the Mountainlight has an adequate, very lightweight and flexible suspension. The Bridger, Finesse, and Flyte all have HDPE framesheets which are backed/stabilized by an aluminum bar (stay). The Finesse & Flyte go a bit further with a delrin rod which is bent over and around the perimeter of the pack to help support heavy loads as well as being connected to the lower snugger strap. When the snugger strap is tightened it pulls the delrin rod into the lumbar region resulting in a more stable, comfortable load. The mountainlight has two very long carbon fiber stays running the length of the pack. The substantial lumbar pad and shoulder harness also function as part of the stabilizing suspension on this pack - more than adequate for 30 - 35 lbs.
Quality/Durability:
1. Flyte (Hardline w/Spectre cloth)
2. Finesse, & Bridger
4. Mountainlight
How would this pack survive a skydive (without parachute) from 4000 feet or a day with the US Postal Service (without protective wrappings) ?
What can I say, the Finesse & Flyte were "built" by the premiere U.S. pack maker and the Bridger was "built" by the ex-premiere U.S. pack maker. Incidently, the Bridger I tested (and own) is pre-Mexico vintage.
Mountainsmith says the Mountainlight pack is durable - I really don't know, but, irregardless, it comes in fourth compared to the other three.
Hipbelt:
1. Flyte & Finesse
3. Bridger
4. Mountainlight
I love the new hipbelt on these mid-sized Ospreys. It covers less actual area than the others, but has just the right constitution and is cupped so that it fits nicely over my hipbone. The Bridger's belt is a tad too bulky, doesn't cup as nicely, and does partially pull away from the body if you tighten the lower hip snugger straps too much.
The Mountainlight belt - 1/8 inch foam sandwiched between layers of material - doesn't appear to have any contouring at all but is so flimsy, it really doesn't need it. It conforms rather well to your body. Problem with the mountainlight belt is that as the weight load increases, its integrity is affected such that it begins to bunch up & sag. Also, if you tighten it too much, the 1/8 inch padding isn't sufficient to keep it from digging in, uncomfortably. On the bright side, the belt is removable and, thus, another belt can be constructed to replace it - which is what I'm working on.
Gear Accessability/Convenience:
1. Flyte/Finesse w/Vector 2 (2 pockets & shovit combination)
2. Bridger
3. Mountainlight
4. Flyte/Finesse w/Vector 1 (shovit pocket)
All four packs have good gear accessability. The Mountainlight, as a panel loader, has two large zippers which zip down on each side a little more than 2/3rds of the pack's length. Because of the two zips, you can be creative using the sides as well as the top for easy access gear, water bottles, etc.
The Bridger has two great pockets on its back - kind of reminds me of a large pack I used to have, before I got Lightweight Religion - what was the name of that pack - Terraplane, I think. The Bridger also has a pocket in its lid and a map pocket inside the pack.
With the Vector 2 pocket, the Finesse has, basically, the same pocket configuration as the Bridger, with the added convenience of a "shovit" pocket between the Vector 2 and the pack. The Flyte would be identical to the Finesse if a Vector 2 was substituted for its standard equipment Vector 1 (NOTE: the Vector 1 is also standard on the Finesse, but for this test I configured it with the V2.).
Perceived Weight:
1. Mountainlight
2. Flyte & Finesse
4. Bridger
How heavy did the pack feel ? Perceived weight pretty much mirrored the results of the "Comfort" test. The Mountainlight actually felt lighter than the other three packs - up to 35 pounds. Of course it really is 2+ pounds lighter. The Ospreys have a better lumbar pad than the Bridger, so I think that's why the Bridger placed last. The slight lumbar pad on the Bridger allows the load to slide down the back which, ultimately, makes it feels heavy on the shoulders. I, frequently, have to shift the pack back up and repeatedly cinch the belt.
Comfort:
with 30 lb load
1. Mountainlight (keep in mind, the 30lb load is only 27 3/4 lbs with this pack)
2. Flyte/Finesse
4. Bridger
with 35 lb load
1. Mountainlight (keep in mind, the 35lb load is only 32 3/4 lbs with this pack)
2. Flyte
3. Finesse
4. Bridger
with 40 lb load
1. Flyte
2. Finesse
3. Bridger
4. Mountainlight (with the Osprey's belt, this pack could be tied for 1st or 2nd)
I think one of the keys here is the load lifter straps. Because the Mountainlight is a tall, slender pack, the load lifter straps are actually at a 45 degree angle and thus function nicely as they should. They pull the top of the shoulder strap up which (1) takes pressure off the top of your shoulder (2) puts weight bearing pressure on your sternum (3) helps to snug the pack into your upper back and (4) helps relieve weight bearing pressure off the hips and lumbar. In effect, helps to distribute pack weight. The Flyte also has functional load lifters, albeit not as nice as the Mountainlight, but better than the other two packs. The load lifters on the Flyte helped it move ahead of the other packs once the weight hit 40 pounds.
With the Finesse and even more so with the Bridger, the packs are short, and by design, the load lifters are not expected to function in the same way as a larger pack. The angle of the load lifter strap is maybe 15 to 20 degrees at best, so less weight is taken off the shoulders and less weight is relieved from the hips and lumbar. This, I believe, because of my bad back, is one of the reasons that the Mountainlight feels so much more comfortable to me. That doesn't mean the other three packs aren't body huggers, because they are. It also doesn't mean that they don't distribute weight well, because they do. It's just that for me, the Mountainlight does a better job of it.
Overall Rating for Lightweight Backpacking Purposes
1. Mountainlight
2. Flyte & Finesse
4. Bridger
I found the Mountainlight to be the most comfortable and if it had the Osprey's belt, probably even more so. Although the suspension and construction isn't near as beefy as the other two, its full-length carbon fiber stays and plastic framesheet shoulder pad backing are more than adequate for light loads. Its many snugger straps, great lumbar pad, and general lack of stiffness, allow this pack to conform to the body rather well.
I would prefer a top loader with a lid, but the panel loader does have its advantages for gear access. The large double zippers are durable, to be sure. Long-term durability is a question with this pack, but in the short term, at the very least, I expect to get a good comfortable, lightweight carry. I will soon add a new belt (converted from an Osprey Flyte) which should increase comfort even more, and will add reinforcing stitching in a couple places to increase durability.
I like my Flyte a lot and I may end up using it frequently. I can get its weight down to about 4 lbs by cutting excess webbing and so on. With the comfort and durability that it provides, that may be an acceptable weight to bear.
Final Comments
Although the Mountainlight fared well in this review, it is by no means the ultimate ultralight pack that I'm looking for. As far as I now know, it is the best on the market today, but there's so much room for improvement in design, materials, and quality, that I hope we see better ultralight packs on the market, soon. Mountainsmith had a huge demand for these packs so I hope other visionary pack builders take notice and follow suit.
But the bottom line for this review - bigger, fatter, heavier packs with beefier suspensions do not necessarily provide a more stable and more comfortable carry for the amount of weight that we lightweight packers carry. The beefier packs are way overkill, over-built and must be considered poorly designed for the purposes of lightweight packers.
Finally, having said all that, you, as well as I, know that in today's marketplace, based upon what's available, all four of these reviewed packs are excellent lightweight backpacking solutions ! In fact, I'm now looking at the Osprey Impala (4 1/2 lbs, 3700 cu in) as a potential all-around, do-everything lightweight pack. It has the same suspension design, and comfort as the Finesse, but has a wee bit larger bag & lid. But then, I'm always looking :-)
Charles Lindsey, 02/01/98 (updated)
