[at-l] eh? pads? eh?

[Sloetoe]

--- Raphael Bustin <rafeb at speakeasy.net> wrote:
> At 06:20 AM 10/2/2006 -0700, Toe wrote:
> > > Standard Time, rafeb at speakeasy.net writes:
> > > Frameless ultralight packs prolly won't work for
> me, since I won't  be carrying a Z-rest or anything
> like it.
> >
> >### You're making a connection here which is not
> >obvious, and may in fact be in error. To wit: what
> >does a frameless pack have to do with carrying a
> >Z-Rest?
> 
> Because the pad *is* the frame -- such as it is.
> If the pack has a hip belt, the only way that can
> be effective is if there's rigidity between the hip
> belt and the rest of the pack.

### Close, but not quite. With a frameless, your
entire *load* "*is*" your suspension, not just your
pad -- which means *how* you pack and *what* you pack
are integral parts to the equation, as is the pack
itself. (Re Packs: there are many cooool looking
frameless out there, but I would never buy/wear one
without significant load control/compression, as the
pack would turn into a sagging, swaying beast. Look at
the Equinox packs my sons wear (pics 7 and 13) and you
can see that these are solid, tight, ready to do
whatever manuevers you're needing to do.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/backpackingwithchildren/photos/view/32f7?b=7&m=f&o=0
But getting back to the question, you didn't explain
what your idea is as to why a ZRest would matter,
versus any other type of pad. FWIW, you like a
ThermaRest, right? Lots of people use a ThermaRest in
a frameless pack. My kids and I use the "eggcrate"
shaped Mt. Washington, which you seemed to say would
not work with a frameless, which my kids and I carry
(and carry and carry).

So: What is the problem with pads and frameless packs
you seek to solve? (Or deem unsolvable)?

Spatior! Nitor! Nitor! Tempero!
   Pro Pondera Et Meliora.