>>1341068>I do worry about the materials they've used on their new lightweight line. I think to keep weight down and still have all that frame and suspension they've had to sacrifice a lot of durability.I have a kinda related issue.
I need a large-ish pack (60l) and I need to be able to carry heavy (20kg+) loads comfortably with it. But still, I want to reduce that load as much as possible, so having a lighter pack to start with seems great.
However, that starts my conundrum.
I can either get some ultralight stuff, where I doubt its robustness and ability to comfortably carry 20kg, or I get some standard heavy backpack, which is, well, heavy to start with.
And sure, I get that a good carrying system and robust fabric adds some weight. fine.
And a large pack needs a second access option and a few straps and such. But not dozens of them
>Sleeping bag compartment you can access at the bottom with huge ass zippers>Huge zippers going around the whole front, to make it essentially a frontloader on top of being a toploader>but since those zippers shouldn't really be strained by loading them, there's also some buckles to secure the front>dayschains galore>side pockets (mesh and zippered)>double top pockets>pockets on the waistbeltand my biggest annoyance
>non adjustable belt buckles, so that you have TWO huge pieces of plastic on the fins of your belt you now can adjust it, adding needless wheight and also having the most unergonomical way to adjust it. Also, when those break, there's no way to replace them, without loosing a lot of strength in the webbing, when you try to stick something onto a .5" long strapWhy are they doing that?
That whole shit easily adds up to 1kg for no reason at all.
And if I go for striped down alpine packs, they' don't have a carrying system adept to large loads and they have zero options to access anything besides the top, which also sucks.
Why is there no middle ground?
