External frame packs obsolete? I don't get it

ThriftyJoe said:
So IMHO, the real question should be, why do you need a pack bag big enough to put all your gear on the inside?.
Click to expand...

i like everything inside the pack since the closer the load is to my back/center of gravity the better it rides...and less stuff to snag on branches/thorns.

to a lesser extent, i'm afraid something might fall off if strapped to the outside...happened to my winter jacket once awhile back...would've been really bad had i not noticed it fell off (i was depending on it to add warmth to my not-warm-enough sleeping bag).
 
ThriftyJoe said:
If you run the strap through a lash tab then around the frame rail before snugging it down, it will pull the item tightly against the frame with 0% swaying or flopping around. Total non-problem. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Sure, I've lashed stuff to the outside of lacks for fifty years, but still prefer to have it all contained in a pack, protected from dirt, debris, snagging, failed straps and so forth. To each his own I say.

FYI, Jansport ond TNF are owned by the same megacorporation, Vanity Fair, also owners of Lee and Wrangler jeans.

Cheapskate Codger recommendation for a new internal frame pack? Go to Walmart and check out the Coleman Max 65L @ $75 +/-. It might just surprise you with quality and features.

http://www.backpacker.com/community/gear_reviews/321
 
Look into the "Alps Outdoor Z Commander Pack"

I got one for about $100 last year and its a very versatile pack for backcountry hunting trips. You can remove the backpack and it transforms into a simple pack frame for hauling quartered game or bulky items.

81B86QdrnGL._SL1500_.jpg


81eEbo03ciL._SL1500_.jpg


81%2BQvE350KL._SL1500_.jpg


71q-gwtyeOL._SL1024_.jpg


81z9VNieFQL._SL1079_.jpg
 
I like the looks of that set-up a lot, particularly for elk hunting. Going to have to look into one of those.
 
Bob W said:
If buying a new pack today, I'd probably go with internal. Not because I prefer them, but because the external market has largely been abandoned and left to low-end 'scout' packs. Kelty, Jansport, etc. Few adjustments, skimpy padding, ugly styles, thinner less durable materials.

Sadly, I don't think there are many/any external frame packs today that compare with my ca. 1990 Camp Trails Omega. It was the apex of frame pack luxury and feature development. Sadly, it's hard to even find an online picture to link.

otdrBackpacksExternalCamp_TrailsExternalOmega-resized200.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear you say that. Recently I spent a lot of time in the city with family. Each weekend, we would end up at various outdoor rec stores to check out packs and pads. I made it a point to check out the Kelty, Alps and other External Frame packs. I was not dissapointed at all with the build quality of Any of the Kelty, Alps or Jansport Externals that I looked at and tried on.

Aside from Kidney pad tension, Shoulder strap hight and Tension + torso strap, what more needs adjusting? When I was using Internal frame packs, those 3 things were the only things that I ever worried about adjusting. Of course, the internal frame packs that I used were either rentals or loaners from friends. Before picking them up for a trip, they were always setup for me. All that I had to do was load it up and make sure the straps were tight. So, maybe I missed part of the adjustment process?
 
Last edited:
ThriftyJoe said:
Like Bob W said, Jansport quality has gone downhill. The Scout has thinner and cheaper straps and hip belt compared to my 1980s pack. Maybe only on the entry level scout pack though. I'll bet if you spent the money on a D2 it would still be well made. At 5 lb 13 oz though, no thank you! I would like the replacement for my old Jansport to be under three pounds now that my gear is so light. Maybe the Osprey Exos or Zpack Exo is the closest I can get to a lightweight pseudo-external frame pack? If I can cram my gear down small enough, an Osprey Exos 46 is only 2 lb 5 oz and $80 cheaper than the Zpack.
Click to expand...

On another forum, a gent showed his External frame setup. He took the pack off and just lashed everything to it. He figured that since everything in the pack was already in stuff sacks, why not do away with the pack and just lash everything to the frame. I've been toying with that idea recently and thought I would share.
 
The advantage nowdays is that you can find "used" frame packs, that were bought but seldom on the back of anybody, dirt cheap.
 
ThriftyJoe said:
... but an internal frame pack would be better and more compact for transferring in and out of vehicles. Think the Coleman may be discontinued though...
Click to expand...

I'm not really trying to sell anyone on the Coleman packs, but they are worth looking at. Yes, here at least, they are still in the stores. And as far as "transferring", they do have built in haul loops in the top front, crossways of the upper back panel and lengthwise in the middle of the back panel between the daisy chains. Mine haven't pulled out. In fact, I've had no stitching or zipper failures. But I am light use in frequency and duration. It wouldn't make sense to me for me to spend twice as much on a Deuter or Mountainsmith.
 
Aside from Kidney pad tension, Shoulder strap hight and Tension + torso strap, what more needs adjusting?
Click to expand...

Looking at the photo of the Alps pack above and comparing it to the Camp Trails Omega, the biggest difference I see is the shoulder straps. Notice on the Alps pack how the shoulder strap simply 'ends' at the very top bar. On the Omega the padded shoulder strap is connected to the top bar, but the main strap wraps over the shoulder and down a bit for the final connection point.

Also notice on the waste strap of the Alps pack. The level of padding appears to be on-par with the Omega. But I can't see how you can raise or lower the waist strap in relation to the frame.

It doesn't look like you can even raise or lower the sternum strap on the Alps either. Maybe?

Not picking on the Alps, just pointing out a few obvious differences to answer your question; the Alps actually looks pretty good to other external frame packs I've seen recently. On some, the frames don't extend upward for bulky top items, the shoulder straps can't be moved farther apart or closer together, the materials are very thin and cheap (polyester instead of cordora nylon), may not have lashing points on the bottom of the pack, frames are uncoated...

Here's the most expensive Kelty frame pack at their website (the others are complete junk). Looks poor compared to the Omega, but the photo does highlight a couple of the things I pointed out about the Alps. Notice how the shoulder straps drop back down a bit, and how the sternum strap can be moved vertically.

56_3_.jpg


P.S. The Omega is expandable close to 5000 cubic inches, and the top pocket is removable as a small daypack.
 
This thread is piquing my interest in external frames.

Still, I think the key points have been hit.

A) Suspensions on external frames tend to have stagnated in the early 80s. Here's the Kelty. Notice no adjustability.
431_1_.jpg


B) Regional differences and hiking goals matter. The trails in New England where I hike get tight as you go higher with lots of thick fir and spruce. Stuff on the outside of packs tend to get banged up and shredded and branches tend to catch external frame packs. I lived in CA for a couple of years. Hiking on trails well graded enough to support pack animals was common (Yosemite, Whitney, Ventanas). We just don't see those of open trails in the northeast.
 
pinnah said:
Regional differences and hiking goals matter....
Click to expand...

I think this is largely what it comes down to. For off-trail and/or steep, loose, rocky hiking an external frame pack would not be my first choice. A well-designed internal frame has a narrower profile, and if packed correctly keeps the center of gravity lower and closer to your body. It moves with you more effectively when balance is important.

An external, however, really shines for humping large loads on trail (assuming the trail isn't too tight/overgrown). In general, I think they also allow for more airflow between the pack and your body in hot weather, though some internal designs also do a good job of this as well. An external is great for packing a lot of stuff into a basecamp, and for things like packing out animals.
 
Shotgun said:
Here's an article I read a while back. It's by a ULer using an external frame so they're not just for heavy loads. I may look into it next time I buy a pack because it makes sense to me. http://www.trailquest.net/BRpackless.html
Click to expand...

Interesting link. Can't say I've ever seen an 'ultra-lighter' adopt an external frame before, but a lot of what she says makes sense.

It also reminded me of another thing that external frames are really nice for - carrying bear canisters.
 
Bob W said:
.

Here's the most expensive Kelty frame pack at their website (the others are complete junk). Looks poor compared to the Omega, but the photo does highlight a couple of the things I pointed out about the Alps. Notice how the shoulder straps drop back down a bit, and how the sternum strap can be moved vertically.

56_3_.jpg


P.S. The Omega is expandable close to 5000 cubic inches, and the top pocket is removable as a small daypack.
Click to expand...

Please educate me, why does the Kelty that you show look poor? What am I missing? It looks fine to me. :confused: 900D Nylon Pack cloth, adjustible shoulder straps, 3450 Cubic inches, 16" To 22" torso fit range. So far, it's looking pretty good to me. I even checked the stitching of Demo that Sportmans Warehouse had 2 Saturday's ago and the stitching was good. What am I missing?

pinnah said:
A) Suspensions on external frames tend to have stagnated in the early 80s. Here's the Kelty. Notice no adjustability.
431_1_.jpg
Click to expand...

You state "Notice no adjustability" Kelty says "Torso Fit Range: •16 - 22 in / 41 - 56 cm". Maybe I have my terms wrong, I thought 16" to 22" meant that the user could adjust the straps to fit a shorter or taller person between those two sizes. . . . I also see 3 points on the shoulder straps that can be adjusted. #1, the little sliders at the base of the shoulder pads, #2, the Sternum strap can be raised and lowered and #3, There is a way to change he height of where the shoulder straps hit the frame. :confused:

What's inherently wrong with Polyester Rip stop? Or is it the fact that It's not nylon? I always figured that, If it works, it works. Maybe I'm missing something, if so, please enlighten me.

Gent's, so you know, I'm not looking to flame your knowledge or opinions. They are vastly different then mine, so I'm looking for enlightenment on the subject. Thanks!
 
ThriftyJoe, that is a cool pack. Thanks for the description and pictures, it really helps. . . Come to think of it, I've seen that pack before {make and model}. Can't remember if it was one of my trips along the Escalenti River or if it was up Nebo, it could have been the trip to Colorado. Either way, it was in the mid 90's and who ever in my group that had it, rather liked it. Those wings always looked odd to me. What are they for? They look removeable on your pack.

This thread has reminded me of a few things. I've gotten used to carrying packs that occasionally don't fit me. The packs that did fit me were Long or Extra Long framed packs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't Kidney pads supposed to take most of the Weight of the pack and place it on your hips? If so, Doesn't this mean that the shoulder pads are mainly for Stability? Or is this something that only applies to external frame packs? My brother says the same thing. The Kidney pad puts 80% to 100% of the weight on your hips, the shoulder straps are for the other 20% and stability. If this is the case, then the shoulder straps being high enough to stabalize the load, is the important thing. Again, maybe this only applies to External frames, or we picked up bad info many years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top