[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [at-l] External Frame Packs
- Subject: Re: [at-l] External Frame Packs
- From: "Steven Dopp" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:18:27 -0400
Wix, you wrote:
> I've got a C.T. Wilderness Panel Loader w/kitchen sink. It is on the
> heavy side. I tried the C.T. Wild. Top Loader, probably should have gone
> with it, but.!!
> My old pack was a Gerry out of Colorado. About the same stowage space,
> but it was a lot lighter (about 3 1/2 lbs). The frame was a magnesium
> alloy, the pack sack was a cordura material, also a panel loader. I
> it in the days of yore (1970), Gerry no longer makes BackPacks (other
> for "totin kids").
I've noticed the increasing weight of external frame packs over the years.
I sure wish I could find a 3 1/2 pound external. How about a Titanium
external pack frame?
> My main preference for an external frame is the ventilation. I've hiked
> in and around the Grand Canyon several times (last was rim to rim), also
> other places in AZ. I sweat a lot.! I've tried internal (INFERNAL)
> frames, but found that the sweat pouring off my back caused chaffing
> it soaked my hiking shorts. With the External frame I don't sweat a much,
> ergo, chafing's gone.
I agree about the ventilation. Key to good ventilation is a taught back
band, which doesn't seem to exist on new models. My old Kelty Mountaineer
has a taught back band and I love it. I also think externals put a greater
percentage of the weight on your hips, which is also a big plus with me.
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *