New WE Lightweight Pack

[mtrain]

Does anyone have any inside info on the new Wilderness Equipment pack "the Haute route"? I've been holding off buying a new pack to see what Ian came up with.
synthetic, 60l pack weighing 2.5kg. I wonder if he's gone a bit overboard with features again. Be interested to see it in the flesh.

[Strider]

I thought you said lightweight? That is nearly twice the weight of my 70L pack!

[wayno]

looks pretty feature rich
click on the "much more into" tab under the pack image
padded fleece lined top pocket
extra pockets on the shoulder straps
you can extend the top of teh pack significantly for larger loads, it looks like a lot more than 60 litre capability. but the specs dont say exactly how much.
heavy nylon sleeve up the front of the pack


http://www.wildequipment.com.au/backpac ... ode=WEECHO

[cooee]

My 20 year old 80li macpac is the same weight.....................

[cooee]

Well if l could EDIT............. .2 more.

[Strider]

It actually doesn't look all that well thought out. For example..

Hypalon hydration ports when a much lighter material could have been used - abrasion is hardly an issue here.

Massive extendible throat. Realistically how much could this pack carry? If I was going to be carrying "monster loads" I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to do it with a 60L pack.

Smartphone pocket and padded/lined top.pocket - why bother?

Bottle pockets might possibly be the best I have ever seen, however.

This will be a pack that sells primarily on form rather than function I think.

[Gusto]

I own a Lost World and have used it extensively.

I would trust W.E. to have put extensive thought into the design of the bag. I also would expect it to be very durable. I wouldn't write it off so quickly.

Having said that, a fleece lined pocket seems new/unusual to me.

[Strider]

I don't doubt it's well designed and durable. I guess I have just grown used to seeing the ingenius small changes manufacturers of lightweight packs make to save a bit here and a bit there. This one, however, seems to be a step in the totally opposite direction and uncharacteristic of bushwalking packs in general.

[blacksheep]

Other than the topic heading , has it been promoted/ marketed as a light weight pack? ( it may be light relative to the usual WE build, but the features are at odds with a genuine pursuit of a light weight effort)

[wayno]

buried in the long text on their main page is a vague reference about lightweight packs in general, it doesnt name that pack specifically but mentions the Haute route as a testing location

http://www.wildequipment.com.au/

New Developments
We are well down the track with the development of a new lightweight range of backpacks. Our classic core range of canvas packs and day packs is also undergoing a refreshment and the results of that will be coming through soon. We have devised a somewhat radical and certainly completely unique frame system for the new lightweight range. Our objective has been to minimise weight without compromising comfort and load carrying ability. This process, requiring careful engineering is almost at its conclusion. Preliminary testing was carried out last summer on our 800km Atlantic to Mediterranean traverse of the Pyrenean Haute Route over tough and relentlessly steep terrain. If you are looking at a mid-capacity pack for walking or alpine use and you can wait a while, you should.

[blacksheep]

There you go. We may as well point out the various ways it isn't yellow as well while we are at it.

[wayno]

well when you combine yellow and mauve you do get red...

[Moondog55]

I do like that water bottle pocket. I would find the hip belt pockets far too small ( I use MOLLE pouches after all ) but I see nothing radical in the design. Talking to Henry via email I think the new buckle arrangement on the hip belt should be much better, almost as good as the original Velcro one

[jacko1956]

I don't know.
I prefer mine at 1.36kg and $250US.
http://www.ula-equipment.com/product_p/catalyst.htm

And I got mine in yellow and black.

[Moondog55]

[b]WE have always traded on the robustness and longevity of their gear. Jacko I have no doubt it's a good pack but at a mere 18.5kg comfort level it would never do me, and at the weight stated I have doubts about it's lifespan, WE are for people who want their gear to last decades not years. All gear is a trade-off.

[jacko1956]

If your gear lasts decades, why do you need to consider a new one?
Who here really hikes with a decades old pack.
Most are to some extent "gear junkies" and own several.
Re longevity - my Catalyst has just done 3000km and my Circuit has over 4000km on it.
They are unscathed except for dirt and a fair amount of body odour which I am washing out of them.
I think the fundamental problem is the 18.5kg.
I definitely do not recommend them for loads greater than 16kg, but if your load is greater than that for anything but really extended winter walks, perhaps you need to rethink your pack contents before you rethink your pack.
I looked at this thread as it refers to a "lightweight" pack.
I do not consider this a lightweight pack.

[Moondog55]

Fair enough comment, it is "Lightweight" when compared to other WE packs tho, and yes I pack for extended winter walks. I do own summer packs though which like most of my gear is decades old ( like me ) I used to pride myself on getting the weight down but as my back disintegrates I find I need better mattresses and up goes the weight; at least until I can afford a decent ultralight air mattress and cot that can support my frame

[mtrain]

The durability and function is the reason I have owned WE packs in the past and why I have held out to see what Ian would do for his interpretation of lightweight. The problem I think is the mentality that dominated the outdoor gear industry for a while that every piece of gear should be feature rich and bullet proof which cumulatively adds up to excess weight. I had hoped he would design something fairly durable but simple to save weight. I have envisioned something like some of very minimalist roll top "sacks" with no frills but a good harness and durable materials e.g. the Exped lightening but with a bit more capacity.
It would be interesting to take the WE designers out for a week with under ten kilos somewhere remote like the SW and see how they enjoy it without quite as many features.

[jacko1956]

Moondog have you checked out the new mattresses from Big Agnes in the US?
Their Q Core mattresses are positively luxurious and not very heavy.
I am extremely comfortable on any of the three NeoAirs I have and they are light.
As a side sleeper over 50, I cannot hike extended periods without a good mattress.
Yes the durability of the newer air mattresses is still wanting and you need to be careful with them, but comfort on the trail is no longer hard to find.
I am far happier spending some extra dollars on my night time comfort than anything else in my gear.

[Moondog55]

It's the dollars Jacko not the lack of new gear to buy

[Gusto]

With respect to weight, This pack is pretty similar to WE's Alpine Express pack.

Also this new pack is quite a bit heavier than there previous lightweight pack which was 1.7kg for 70L

I agree that it would have been nice to see a light weight version of their Expedition range packs. They are very basic when it comes to features.

[Strider]

Lightweight doesn't have to mean basic. Osprey are a prime example of excellent features at a low weight penalty.

[jacko1956]

At least 50% of packs on the Appalachian Trail this year were Osprey.
Far and away most popular pack.

[doogs]

At least 50% of packs on the Appalachian Trail this year were Osprey.
Far and away most popular pack.

Well Ospreys marketing department should give themselves a big pat on the back as they are clearly hitting their target audience. WE packs usually stand up to a bit of off track abuse hence the extra weight.

[mtrain]

Lightweight doesn't have to mean basic. Osprey are a prime example of excellent features at a low weight penalty.

I agree and it was an osprey volt that I have been holding off buying. However when you try to combine feature rich and rugged construction then you start to have excess weight, thats why I was waiting for a simple but tough option.

[Joomy]

I thought you said lightweight? That is nearly twice the weight of my 70L pack!

My first thought exactly. And my subsequent thoughts weren't much more positive.

I have to say I am borderline shocked at just how lame this appears to be. When WE said that they were working on a new line of lightweight packs I was expecting some sweet, sleak, streamlined workhorses made out of maybe 500d Cordura or Nylon/Kevlar or some other hardy fabric, with weigh saving design features. Instead we have, what, a pack that is still significantly heavier than most of the competition and with some really weird, weight-adding features of questionable utility as Strider pointed out. The water bottle pockets might be great but a) don't most people use hydration bladders now anyway? and b) is it worth the no doubt significant weight penalty over much simpler pockets? I think part of the weight problem stems from the fact that they are still using a heavy framesheet when a simple stiff aluminium frame (or even simpler, aluminium stays) works just as well and weighs like 1/5th as much.

Now I am not a huge Osprey fan but they clearly know how to feature-pack a pack without packing on the kgs. Their Aether pack is under 2kg for 70L and has more features than I can name. And One Planet's WBA is full canvas and 500g lighter. Less features, yes, but that's a good thing, imo. Hip belt pockets, front pocket and maybe water bottle holders are certainly all I would ever need feature-wise. Honestly, when you look at the innovation coming out of the US at the moment (Zpacks, ULA, HMG, Elemental Designs, Gossamer Gear) the Australian industry just looks pathetic.

Personally this seems like a step backward to me, for WE and for Australian-designed gear in general. WE packs should be tough and no-nonsense. Genuinely sad to say it but what I see here is a fair bit of nonsense and little else.

[Joomy]

At least 50% of packs on the Appalachian Trail this year were Osprey.
Far and away most popular pack.

I chalk that up to their ubiquity and ignorance on the part of the consumer of better alternatives. Osprey may have been pioneers in the lightweight synthetic pack market 15 years ago but now it is all about the cottage manufacturers (as you well know). ULA are the new Osprey for sure. Feature-rich, rugged enough (short of pack hauling/throwing), comfy, and light, light, light!

[jacko1956]

At least 50% of packs on the Appalachian Trail this year were Osprey.
Far and away most popular pack.

I chalk that up to their ubiquity and ignorance on the part of the consumer of better alternatives. Osprey may have been pioneers in the lightweight synthetic pack market 15 years ago but now it is all about the cottage manufacturers (as you well know). ULA are the new Osprey for sure. Feature-rich, rugged enough (short of pack hauling/throwing), comfy, and light, light, light!

I don't necessarily agree with that.
I have two ULA packs and love them but the Ospreys for very little extra weight do keep the pack off your back a bit more which reduces that sweat patch on your lower back and they have the "lid" as well which can double as a daypack - useful for "slackpacking" on a trail like the AT.
ULA's were second most common pack. A fair number of cuben fibre packs were around too.

[wayno]

ULA?

[jacko1956]

ULA?

Ultra Light Adventure equipment.
http://www.ula-equipment.com/
Literally a back shed operation based in Utah.