[at-l] lightweight packs & Gregory Whitney

[icw@xxxxxxxxxxx (Clark Wright)]

many hikers have strong opinions re packs, in terms of brands, the
lightweight rage, etc.  I would just like to add a bit to Charles'
comments re Gregory packs, based upon personal experience and as someone
who used to own and run a small outdoor gear retail store.

1)  Gregory packs have been around a long time and are likely to
continue to be around for a long time.
2)  Almost all Gregory packs use the same, time-tested harness and
suspension elements; this is a real plus in terms of long term ability
to switch among models and know you will still get the same great fit
and comfort.
3)  They are darn good packs, but are by today's lightweight hiking
standards VERY heavy.
4)  If - as is the case with many of us - you can only afford to invest
in one pack, and you may well be undertaking hiking adventures OTHER
THAN 1,000+ mile long distance hikes, then going with a heavier Gregory
model that can also accomodate you on mountaineering expeditions, or
shorter distance hikes where you need to be able to carry, say, some
climbing gear, or extra photographic equipment, or extra food and
clothing to take the load off your spouse or young child, etc. - makes a
lot of sense.
5)  If you go with one of the Gregory packs, and are doing a thru-hike,
you can lighten it up a bit for the summer months by taking the top off
and mailing that home.

Thru-thinker [who is close to buying a second, lightweight pack, but
would never get rid of my heavier Dana/Gregory models either!]

MrCharlesENelson@aol.com wrote:

> Hi- a few days ago somebody commented on lighteweight packs while responding
> to a question about the Gregory Whitney.  For the person who originally asked
> the question about the Whitney:  I have a Gregory Shasta(2002 model) which
> has the same exact suspension system, just not all the different outside
> pockets of the Whitney.  I love it.  It is a tad on the "heavy" side- 6 lbs
> for 5,000 ci, but I will tell you that you can't feel the weight of the pack
> while carrying it.  Gregory's shoulder harnes and hipbelt are AWESOME!!!!  I
> have loaded 50 lbs in mine and it feels like I only had half that.  Normally
> I only carry 25-30 lbs max anyway so at those weights it feels like a
> daypack.  These packs carry their own weight so well.  They feel like a part
> of you almost.   I would suggest you to take a look at the Shast as oppossed
> to the Whitney though- the Whitney only has 500 more ci in it, but weighs a
> pound more (not that big of a deal as I've explained above),  costs a good
> deal more than the Shasta, and has many more zippers that could fail.  The
> Shasta is a stripped down, bare bones top loader- no outside pockets other
> than the lid pocket - all you need are some stuff sacks to stay organized.
> Now- in regards to lghtweight packs such as the Keltys and Mountainsmiths
> mentioned, and ultralightweight packs such as the Go-Lites-  these packs
> while super light, have almost no support in the way of hipbelt and internal
> stays or framesheets and little padding.  This means that if you want to use
> one of these packs comfortably, you need to be totally committed to being an
> ultralightweight packer - you can't use those flyweight packs with 40lbs of
> equipment packed inside.  If you overload these packs, you'll suffer with a
> hurting back and shoulders.  If you can't get your overall pack weight
> (including food and water) WAY down, then you're much better off going with a
> "regular" internal or external frame pack with more support.
> _______________________________________________
>>From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> Stay on topic!
>
>
>