GEAR REVIEW: Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System

By Will Rietveld

This cook kit is made in heaven for backpackers on the lower end of Ultralight, and those who want to break the 5 pound base weight barrier.

Leave it to GVP, aka Glen Van Peski, the UL Master, to come up with the lightest cook kit for one person. The Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System can weigh as little as 3 ounces for a complete cooking kit. That should get your attention.

The Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System is sold as an Esbit fueled cooking system. The specified total weight is 4.2 ounces.

There are zillions of lightweight and ultalight cooking systems out there, available for purchase or hand made, each one with some good testimonials. My review of the Gossamer Gear system will add to that list. This review describes what the Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System is and how it performed for me. I don’t make any attempt to compare it with other systems.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Gossamer Gear (www.gossamergear.com)
Product	GVP Ultralight Stove System
Components	Esbit tablets (3 pack)  45g; aluminum heat reflector  3g; Cuben cozy 15g; Esbit Stand 1g; Silicone band  5g; metal pot lid 4g; plastic lid 4g; 22 oz / 650 ml cook pot  20g; windscreen cone 22g
Weight	Total Kit 4.20 oz/120 g
MSRP	$90

Description

Since I’m a gram pincher, I was originally attracted to the Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System because of its minimal weight. However functionality and durability are equally important. For me, the important elements of an ultralight stove system are:

• Minimal weight
• Compact
• Sized for one person
• Wind resistant
• Burns alcohol fuel
• Fuel efficient
• Adequately durable
• Good lifespan
• Easy to setup and use
• Compatible with my cooking and eating techniques

 As you can see from the component list, the GVP Ultralight Stove System uses Esbit fuel tabs. The main advantage of Esbit is its more energy dense, so it will boil water about twice as fast as alcohol fuel. The disadvantages are the fuel tabs are somewhat expensive and hard to find, smell terrible while burning, and coat the cook pot with soot.

I personally dislike Esbit and prefer to use alcohol fuel. Why? Because it’s cheap and easy to find, doesn’t smell (much), and is clean burning so no soot. The disadvantage is it’s slower; it takes about 10 minutes to boil a pint of water. That’s not a problem for me because I can do camp setup or takedown while the water is heating.

I wish the Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System were also available in an alcohol version; it would be a simple matter of substituting an alcohol burner and small fuel bottle for the Esbit stand and Esbit tablets. They could even leave out the fuel bottle because the bottle size depends on trip length; I have an assortment of bottle sizes that I use.

When I received the Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System I made a few adjustments to meet my criteria (above list). First, I trimmed a little weight by removing the silicone pot band. Then I substituted a Zelph StarLyte alcohol burner (0.45 ounce with its cap) for the Esbit stand. The remaining components are all functional. Overall, the adjustments were minor to make the stove system meet my needs. The weight of that configuration is 3 ounces.

The Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System as tested weighs just 3 ounces. The components are:

1. Titanium Caldera Cone – sturdy and durable.
2. Cook pot – Foster’s beer can cut down to 22 ounces, then rimed and ridged to increase durability. Height is 4.25 inches.
3. Aluminum pot lid with steam vent and lift tab.
4. Plastic pot cover – this serves a dual purpose: seal the pot to shake a drink to mix it, or add water and shake the pot to clean it.
5. Soft aluminum heat reflector – to put under the burner.
6. Zelph StarLyte alcohol burner – available at www.woodgaz-stove.com for $12 plus $4 shipping. It comes with a plastic lid (not shown). I like this burner because it’s very lightweight (0.45 oz with lid), compact (fits perfectly in the packed kit, fuel efficient, and excess fuel can be stored inside the stove without spilling. The burner is packed with fiberglass, which holds the fuel inside.
7. Plastic fuel measuring cup – this is simply a medicine cup; it’s useful because I can’t see how much fuel I’m adding to the burner, so it’s best to measure it.
8. Cuben Fiber cozy – for keeping food hot while it’s hydrating, and warm while eating. It also serves as a carry bag.

The spoon is not included in the cooking system.

Testing

I tested the Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System on two backpacking trips in the remote backcountry of Canyonlands National Park, Utah.

 

I prefer to place the stove on a flat rock to use it, rather than disturbing the ground. As you can see, it’s very compact when set up.

Even though the cook pot is small, you can still cook fish in it, in this case trout cut into chunks. The technique is to put the fish sections into the pot, fill the pot with water up to within about 1 inch of the top, bring the water + fish to boiling, cover and place the pot in the cozy for 10 minutes, then eat.

 I typically only cook at dinnertime. I fill the pot about half full with water, bring it to a boil, dump in my dinner (about 5 ounces dry weight fills the pot when cooked), bring it back to a boil, then put the pot into the cozy to hydrate. I eat directly out of the pot with the short handled spoon shown; no long handled spoon required. For desert I eat a protein bar.

For breakfast I drink a cold mocha consisting of a powdered nutritional shake mix plus a teaspoon of instant coffee, shaken in the cook pot, followed by a cereal or granola concoction hydrated with cold water.

Performance

With the routine described above, I use less than 0.5 ounce of fuel a day, which is a small bottle for a typical trip. For someone who enjoys a hot beverage or two every day, the amount of fuel will double or triple.

I really like the shortened Foster’s can cook pot; it’s easy to reach the bottom with a short handled spoon which also fits neatly into the kit for packing. And it’s easy to clean. A full-height Foster’s can has enough volume to cook for two people, and can be used on the cone provided in this kit, but it requires a long-handled spoon to reach the bottom and is harder to clean. I usually only boil water in it and hydrate in another container.

The titanium caldera cone is also a big plus. It’s strong, durable, and works for a long time. I have tested the aluminum version and find it easily bends out of shape and the connection doesn’t work very well after some use.

The Zelph StarLyte alcohol burner is a good match for this cooking system, but most any small/compact alcohol burner will work.

The Cuben Fiber cozy is very nice; it also serves as a carry sack to contain and protect the kit.

Assessment

In my 17 years of gear testing and reviewing, including several years as Backpacking Light Magazine’s cooking systems editor, I have tested a lot of cooking gear of all types. I can say unequivocally, for a solo cooking system, the Gossamer Gear GVP Ultralight Stove System can’t be beat. After all, it was created by the UL Master himself – Glen Van Peski – so you know it’s very refined and as lightweight as it gets.

Glen prefers Esbit, I prefer alcohol, but that’s a personal preference thing. The system works equally well with either fuel, and it would be nice if Gossamer Gear would offer that choice.

The $90 price tag is a bit steep, but the main components are custom made for Gossamer gear and sold in limited quantities. Once you make the purchase, you will have the lightest, most compact complete solo cook kit currently available. It will last many years with reasonable care. This cook kit is made in heaven for backpackers on the lower end of Ultralight, and those who want to break the 5 pound base weight barrier.

Another reason for getting it is its simply ultralight elegance, a key component in a well thought out ultralight kit, and something that really makes you feel content – like owning a Tesla.

GEAR REVIEW: Topo Terraventure Trail Shoe

By Will Rietveld

Topo has found a way to maximize the performance of the Terraventure with the least amount of weight.

According to one study, taking 1 pound off your feet is equivalent to taking 6 pounds out of your backpack, so lightweight shoes are an important component of an ultralight backpacking kit. But not any lightweight shoe will do for backpacking, especially over rough terrain. My choice for ultralight backpacking footwear is lightweight, supportive, cushioned, grippy trail running shoes. That is the context of this review.

I have wide feet (E width), so my preference is shoes with a wide toebox so my feet can splay out. That feature also helps a lot when my feet swell during long hikes or runs. The toebox area is the only area where I want the extra width; I want the heelcup to be snug.

The Topo Terraventure is designed for running on rough trails, which makes it a good candidate for ultralight backpacking. (Topo Athletic photo)

Topo shoes are one of the few shoe brands offering that combination. Most others are simply “medium width”. I previously tested the Topo Hydroventure, a waterproof-breathable shoe made with eVent DVdry LT membrane and construction, and my feet loved them. Is the Topo Terraventure just as good?

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Topo Athletic (www.topoathletic.com)
Model	Terraventure
Weight	10.2 oz/shoe (men’s 9); 11.4 oz/shoe (men’s 12 tested)
Features	No-sew construction, nylon mesh upper with polyurethane overlays, wide toebox, fitted heel cup, gusseted tongue, Ghillie lacing system, 3mm heel to toe drop, flexible forefoot TPU rock plate, high-traction outsole, EVA midsole
MSRP	$110

Description

 

The Terraventure’s upper is nylon mesh with polyurethane overlays, and no-stitch construction.

 

An aggressive outsole lug design provides serious traction.

Soon after the shoes arrived I took them on a 12-day camping and hiking trip in the Tucson, Arizona area. The rubber outsoles have loads of grip and rarely slipped.

 Testing

Although the Terraventure has a fully gusseted tongue, I prefer to wear short lightweight gaiters over them to keep debris out, especially when hiking off-trail.

Over four months of testing I wore the Terraventure on 44 day hikes and one backpack, for a total of 48 testing days. Trail conditions varied widely: desert granite, hardpacked snow, frozen mud, slickrock, rocky trails, Utah sand, and steep dirt trails. I wore them trail running several days. The backpacking trip in Utah’s Canyonlands country included class 3 scrambling, bashing through brush, and walking sandy washes.

Performance

Fit – I found the fit to be the same as the Hydroventure, a wide toebox and snug heelcup. However, since my measured shoe size is a 12-E, I found the toebox none too wide. I had to wear thin socks in them to avoid scrunching my toes. The wide toebox is a welcome feature, even for h  for hikers with normal feet, because their feet pancake out on prolonged hikes.

Breathability – The mesh nylon upper provided good breathability; only a coarse mesh upper would provide more, but that has its disadvantages -- your toes get very dirty and sand enters easily. I wore the shoes in 89F temperatures in southern Arizona in relative comfort.

Traction – The Terraventure has a 6 mm rubber outsole with a very aggressive tread. Traction is outstanding.

Stability – The forefoot TPU rock plate insulates my feet from sharp rocks, while providing the right amount of stiffness for edging. For downhill hiking I like to tighten the laces over my instep to prevent toe jamming, and the Ghillie lacing system holds firm in that location without slipping.

Comfort – The EVA midsole is 14 mm in the heel and 11 mm at the ball. I found cushioning to be very good, but not as good as some other brands with enhanced cushioning. The Ghillie lacing allowed me to simply tug on the lacing to tighten it over my instep to enhance stability, especially on descents, while remaining looser in the lower section for maximum toebox width.

Durability – The Terraventure is amazingly durable. After 48 days of hiking on rough trails, off-trail bushwhacking, and some trail running, the uppers look like new and the outsoles are only lightly worn. The only evidence of use is some scuffing on the edges of the outsole.

Cleaned after 48 days of use, the only sign of use is some scuffing on the edges of the outsole; the nylon mesh upper looks like new. The outsole is worn some, but there is still a lot of life left in the shoes.

The only issue I had with the Terraventure is fine Utah sand sifts through the nylon upper when hiking in dry washes. In that situation I had to remove the shoes frequently and dump sand out of them.

 Assessment

 My overall evaluation of the Terraventure is very similar to the Hydroventure I previously reviewed: the Topo Terraventure is one of the best hiking shoes I have tested. Their wide toebox is what allows me to wear them in the first place, and all of their features add up to a near perfect shoe for ultralight backpacking and day hiking. For their minimal weight, their fit, comfort, traction, and durability are amazing.

An article I would like to write in the near future is my concept of the perfect shoe for ultralight backpacking. And a perfect example of that shoe is the Topo Terraventure.

I really like no-stitch upper construction. Over the years I have tested and reviewed numerous hiking boots and shoes, and found the nemesis is stitching at the fifth metatarsal head (the widest part of your forefoot on the outside). Hiking off-trail and sliding down scree slopes (scree skiing) puts a lot of wear on that exposed area, which wears the stitching through, and the seam comes apart. With no-stitch construction that problem is eliminated (see photos above).

The Terraventure is the most durable trail running shoe I have tested, and I have tested a lot. I usually end up with holes in the mesh in shoes with mesh uppers, but the Terraventure’s nylon mesh upper is essentially unscathed. It helps a lot to have a good polyurethane rand just above the outsole to protect the upper, and in particular a polyurethane overlay at the fifth metatarsal head, as described above and shown in the photos.

The aggressive traction outsole is another component of this shoe I especially like. It provides phenomenal traction, which is a necessity for hiking. At the end of my testing, there is still plenty of life left in the shoes.

For a shoe designed to provide stability on rough trails, the Terraventure is on the lighter end, which I also appreciate. Topo has found a way to maximize the performance of the Terraventure with the least amount of weight.

Finally, at $110 the Terraventure is a good value compared to stability shoes by other brands that cost $20 to $30 more.

Men’s Performance Underwear for Hiking and Backpacking

By Will Rietveld

What do you wear under your kilt? Well, that’s a pretty personal thing, ranging from au natural to something with pretty good support. I’m sure some advocate the former, and its very convenient for women, but men have a different sort of need...

I don’t find many articles on this subject, but it’s a valid question to bring up. Should you wear your normal everyday cotton undies, or is “performance underwear” that much better? Maybe you haven’t thought about it that much. So let’s get this topic out into the open, so to speak.

 

Men’s performance underwear comes in different styles, from shortest to longest: briefs (not shown), trunks, boxers, and long-leg. Brands tested for this article are MyPakage (left) ExOfficio (center), and Saxx (right). I personally prefer trunks and boxers, but I assume each individual has a personal preference.

Since we pay big bucks for high-tech outerwear – jackets, wind shirts, pants, shells, rainwear – why should underwear be any different? Does it matter that much?

It does matter:

• Don’t wear something that soaks up moisture and dries slowly, so forget cotton.
• Stay away from thongs!
• Synthetics are much better for moisture management and quick drying, just like a baselayer top.
• Wool is good for the cold months, but it’s slower to dry compared to synthetics.
• Flat seam construction avoids abrasion.
• On a multi-day trip, you can wash out synthetic underwear and dry it overnight.
• They have stretch to conform to the body and provide a snug fit.
• They prevent your bells from clanging against your thighs, in other words they’re supportive.
• Many have a wider waistband to distribute pressure (but adds weight).
• You can actually wear them as a hiking short or swimsuit, which makes them multi-purpose.

Styles

• Briefs typically have no inseam.
• Trunks have a 3 to 4-inch inseam.
• Boxers have a 5 to 6-inch inseam.
• Long-Leg styles have an 8 to 10-inch inseam.

A lot of garment manufacturers make performance underwear in a wide array of styles and fabrics, and the inseam length within an individual style varies by manufacturer.

Testing

For years I wore cotton briefs before synthetic performance bottoms came out. Then I discovered synthetic briefs by Patagonia and Terramar for backpacking, and found them to be a good improvement. The revelation came for me when I got some Saxx trunks at the Outdoor Retailer trade show to try when the first came out. Their claim is “life changing underwear”. They did, I love them, and have worn them ever since.

Saxx. What is unique about Saxx underwear (and My Pakage below) is they have an engineered pouch at the front that provides excellent support for the male anatomy during active sports, just like a sports bra does for women. Specifically, their BallPark Pouch, Three-D Fit, and Flat Out Seams combine to provide great fit, support, friction prevention. Saxx has numerous fabrics and styles for different seasons and sports, and a range of colors and patterns from mild to wild. I have worn Saxx trunks and boxers and like both of them equally well. In particular, I especially like the Quest 2, which is a lightweight highly breathable summer version. (Saxx photo)

Saxx also has the Kinetic Tight, which is a synthetic calf length tight for active sports in cool weather. They are a combination underwear and tight. I tried these for backcountry skiing on cold days and really like them. I don’t overheat in them as I would wearing wool tights.

MyPakage. This brand came out soon after Saxx, as I recall, and has been well received. Their underwear has a front pouch similar to Saxx that they call “Keyhole Technology”, and their underwear is available in a range of styles, fabrics, and colors, some pretty wild. I have tried MyPakage trunks and boxers in several fabrics, like them just as well as the Saxx bottoms, and favor lightweight breathable synthetics. (MyPakage photo)

ExOfficio. I recently tried ExOfficio Give-n-Go underwear on a 2-week February trip to camp and hike in the southern Arizona Sonoran Desert. ExOfficio does not have the defined pouch technology like Saxx or MyPakage, but they do claim to have “ergonomic support and active fit”. I tested the Sport Mesh version (lightweight and breathable) and Sol Cool version (cooling), both in a boxer style. Although both versions were the same size, the Sport Mesh fit me perfectly and performed well, but the Sol Cool version was too loose and did not perform very well at all. Fit really matters. Interestingly, the packaging does not reveal what the fabric makeup is, but the garment labels reveal the Sport Mesh boxers are 92% nylon and 8% spandex and the Sol Cool boxers are 54% cotton, 42% nylon, and 6% spandex. Overall, the Sport Mesh was a hit and the Sol Cool was a miss.

Saxx and MyPakage offer many versions of their underwear with or without a fly. The flyless version seems to support a little better but the fly version is more convenient. Not a big difference, so personal choice. Both brands perform well for me, and I don’t have any particular preference between the two. The ExOfficio boxers have a fly and don’t have the specific pouch “technology” of the Saxx and MyPakage underwear.

It’s important to size underwear to get a snug-but-not-tight fit, and definitely not loose. Most have a soft stretch to fit a range of shapes and sizes, so most men would wear one size smaller than their regular pant size. I normally wear a size Large in a pant (34-35 waist), but I wear size Medium trunks and boxers.

Assessment

There are loads of options (brands, fabrics, styles) in the performance underwear category, and it is difficult to test all of them. So this article will suffice as an introduction to the topic and a testimonial to my experiences and personal preferences. Perhaps readers would like to add their testimonial on brands and styles they like.

This reminds me of a story in the book “I Hike” by my friend Lawton “Disco” Grinter: he ran into a foreign hiker on the CDT called Speedo who was pleading for water. Speedo was complaining of “schayfing” (chafing) and needed the water to shave his “durf”, a private area which had gotten inflamed from many miles of hiking. He was in serious pain. Chafing can be a serious problem while hiking a long trail. The solution is to avoid the problem by wearing performance underwear of the types described above, and use Bodyglide as needed.

My personal preference is the Saxx and MyPakage underwear, which have a well-designed pouch to support and isolate the male anatomy so it doesn’t jostle or rub, avoiding discomfort and chafing. I have a slight preference for the trunk style because they are a bit lighter and cooler, but boxers work just as well. Both are a bit expensive at about $25/pair, but well worth it.

Bottom line, if your undies are in a bundle, causing discomfort or chafing, consider switching to synthetic trunk or boxer style performance underwear with flat seams. My personal experience and preference is the brands (Saxx and My Pakage) that have a well designed pouch to support and confine the male anatomy, but there are likely other brands and styles that have a strong following. This is a topic for some good discussion; what works best for you?

GEAR REVIEW: Patagonia Nano-Air Jacket

The basic issue, for me, is the jacket’s active exertion comfort range, by itself, occurs at colder temperatures than I normally encounter. On many occasions, especially sunny, calm, cool (25-35F) conditions, the jacket simply got too hot so I had to take it off.

By Will Rietveld

The concept started with the introduction of Polartec Alpha – breathable insulation claimed to maintain warmth and comfort while actively exercising. Soon after the introduction many manufacturers offered breathable insulated jackets. Although Patagonia uses their proprietary FullRange Insulation rather than Polartec Alpha in the Nano-Air Jacket, the functionality is basically the same, and Patagonia does a great job with the implementation.

Patagonia men’s Nano-Air Jacket in “Underwater Blue”.

The Nano-Air, and other jackets of this type, are claimed to be a jacket that you never have to repeatedly put on and take off to stay comfortable in varying conditions, and one that permits the user to stay comfortable no matter what level of activity. That’s a “lofty” claim, so I decided to try one out to see how it actually performs. Actually, if the claims are even somewhat real, that would be a good improvement.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Patagonia (www.patagonia.com)
Model	Men’s Nano-Air Jacket
Shell and Lining	Shell is 1.3 oz/sq yd 20-denier nylon ripstop with DWR, lining is 2 oz/sq yd 50-denier plain weave nylon with DWR; both have 2-way stretch
Insulation	60-gram FullRange polyester, 40 CFM
Weight	Measured weight men’s Large 13.2 oz; mfr specification 12.5 oz for size Medium
Features	Full-height front zipper with storm flap behind, 2 zippered handwarmer pockets, 1 zippered chest pocket, elastic cuffs, hem drawcord with 2 adjustors
Fit	Athletic fit with set-in sleeves, “unlimited range of motion”
MSRP	$249

Description

 

Front View. The Nano-Air has an athletic fit, meaning close to body. The sleeves are extra long and trim, and the body extends below the waist. The full-height zipper is not the water-resistant type.

Back View: The jacket is sized so it can be worn over a heavier baselayer or fleece pullover.

Hand Pockets. Two “handwarmer” pockets are actually lined with the shell and lining fabrics. Both are very soft so they feel warm. The pockets are large enough to store gloves.

Chest Pocket and Shell Fabric. The chest pocket is large enough to store a compact camera or cell phone. There is no port to route ear buds. This photo also give a good closeup of the shell fabric, which has a very soft/pleasant feel. It’s ripstop nylon for durability that has been brushed for softness and has a DWR treatment.

Hem Drawcord and Lining Fabric. The hem drawcord has two adjustors (one shown) for sealing the bottom of the jacket. The lining is brushed plain weave nylon with a DRW treatment. Both shell and lining fabrics have two-way stretch.

Underarm. Brick quilting in the side panels, plus articulated patterning and other quilting details improve the jacket’s shape and durability.

 

Testing 

I tested the Patagonia Nano-Air Jacket on a total of 11 trips that included backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, snow walking, and two multi-day ski-in trips to a mountain cabin.

Here are my fit/feel/ergonomic observations from testing:

• The jacket is incredibly soft and supple, and has a stretchy feel.
• The fit is excellent and true to size.
• The back covers my butt.
• There is room inside for some layering if desired.
• The fit around my neck is loose (see the first photo under Description).
• It has wonderful articulation and is very comfortable to wear.
• The hand pockets are located high, above a backpack hipbelt.
• Love the longer sleeves. 

Both the shell and lining have a good DWR treatment, which causes water to bead up and roll off, and prevent snow from sticking.

The brushed nylon fabric is easy to stain around the collar, but it’s easy to clean just that area.

My observations on temperature regulation and comfort in high-exertion activities are a mixed bag:

• For me, the jacket performed best over a thin baselayer to get maximum benefit from its breathability.
• Adjusting ventilation by opening/closing the front zipper, or tightening/loosening the hem drawcord are more effective for temperature regulation than jacket breathable insulation and fabrics.
• The aforementioned combination of ventilation and breathability factors are sufficiently effective during active exertion only in cold or very cool conditions, specifically below 25F, overcast, and breezy/windy. Some combination of those factors is required for comfort, otherwise the jacket is too hot to wear comfortably.
• On several cold days (below 15F) the jacket performed wonderfully with the front zipper closed.
• However, on many occasions (not cool, overcast, or breezy enough), the jacket simply got too hot, even with the front zipper open, and I had to take it off.
• As claimed, donning a shell over the jacket in really cold/windy conditions adds a lot of warmth.
• When I stop to rest, the jacket dries out quickly, and I get chilly if I don’t donn a shell over it.

 

Assessment

The basic issue, for me, is the jacket’s active exertion comfort range, by itself, occurs at colder temperatures than I normally encounter. On many occasions, especially sunny, calm, cool (25-35F) conditions, the jacket simply got too hot so I had to take it off.

I do agree that the jacket’s fabrics and insulation help to extend the comfort period, but a larger amount of temperature regulation is accomplished by simply opening or closing the front zipper.  I find the same to be true when I test waterproof/breathable rain shells – fabric breathability helps, but ventilation is the main contributor to comfort.

It appears, for me, that a lighter weight breathable jacket is needed, such as the Patagonia Nano-Air Light Hybrid Jacket, to accomplish the “keep it on” goal for high exertion sports in cool and cold weather. I can always don a shell over the lighter insulation layer if I get too chilly.

For light or moderate exertion in cool temperatures, like a walking pace on flatter ground, the Nano-Air performs well; it’s a matter of consistent weather conditions and activity level. However, how often does that happen? If the sun comes out, or a hill comes up, or the wind stops, its time to open the front zipper to regulate temperature, the same as any other jacket.

The bottom line from my testing is the Nano-Air Jacket effectively regulates temperature in cold weather active endeavors, but its too much insulation (for me) to wear continuously in active cool weather sports. The latter is more common in my situation, so the Nano-Air Jacket is too much insulation if the goal is to “keep it on”. I believe a more functional and versatile option would be to go with a lighter breathable insulation garment, like the new Patagonia Nano-Air Light Hybrid Jacket and don a highly breathable shell over it (such as the new Patagonia Airshed Pullover), as needed to maintain comfort. A combination of those layers, plus the huge ventilation benefits from simply adjusting the zipper(s) should perform well.

GEAR REVIEW: 2017 Gossamer Gear Silverback 50 Backpack

The new Silverback incorporates all of the improvements introduced in the 2016 upgrade of the Gorilla pack. In my review of the 2016 Gorilla I stated “The Gorilla is now a very refined backpack, and still retains Gossamer Gear’s DNA for lightweight and functionality.” The new Silverback gets all of that, so it’s a very refined backpack from the get-go.

By Will Rietveld

The Silverback is new for 2017, and a brand new model for Gossamer Gear. With 50 liters of volume, it fits squarely between the Gorilla (40 liters) and Mariposa (60 liters).

The brand-new Gossamer Gear Silverback 50 Backpack for 2017 (Gossamer Gear photo).

 In the past, many pack buyers had a hard time deciding which Gossamer Gear pack to get: they worried that the Gorilla is too small, so they opted to get the larger Mariposa, which weighs only a few ounces more and is has a similar price tag. The trouble with that rationale is the Mariposa is a big jump in volume and the buyer may not actually need all that volume.

Enter the midsized Silverback 50; how does the Silverback fit in, perform, and compare with its siblings?

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Gossamer Gear (www.gossamergear.com)
Model	Silverback 50
Volume	50 Liters
Weight	Mfr spec size Medium complete pack 37.4 ounces, measured weight size Large with Medium hipbelt 38.25 oz for the complete pack
Materials	Contoured aluminum frame, 210D Robic Nylon body, 210D Robic/Extreema Grid reinforcements and high wear areas, air mesh harness lining, power mesh pad holder
Features	Large fabric front pocket, 2 durable fabric side pockets, fitted floating detachable top pocket, 2 zippered hipbelt pockets, 4 side compression straps, hydration sleeve with 1 center hose port, 9-inch extension collar, drawcord top closure, trekking pole holders, removable corrugated Sitlight pad backpanel, sternum strap, ice axe loop, haul loop.
MSRP	$260 with hipbelt

Description

The short answer, if you are already familiar with the new 2016 Gorilla pack, is the Silverback is a larger volume version of the Gorilla – the design and feature set are the same, and the two packs differ only in their dimensions and materials used.

The longer version, with a focus on important upgrades and specific differences, is presented below.

There are six main changes in the 2016 Gorilla transferred to the new 2017 Silverback, and all of them are significant:

1. The contoured tubular aluminum frame connects to the hipbelt
2. A stiffened hipbelt is more supportive
3. A fitted, floating, and removable top pocket
4. Large gusseted hipbelt pockets
5. New Robic fabrics in the packs’ body and reinforcements; lighter fabrics in the Gorilla and heavier fabrics in the Silverback.
6. One center hydration tube port

 

In previous Gossamer Gear packs, the one-piece U-shaped contoured tubular aluminum stay merely resided in sleeves on the backpanel. It served as a pack stiffener, but it was not an integrated internal frame. With the new 2016 Gorilla (and existing Mariposa), the ends of the stay anchored in sleeves on the back of the hipbelt, making it a true internal frame backpack. The same design is used in the new Silverback.

A layer of semi-stiff plastic has been added to the hipbelt to make it stiffer, so it now works in concert with the connected stays to improve weight transfer and carry comfort. Note the stay pockets on the back of the hipbelt. The combination is a very significant upgrade, which I will explain later. (Gossamer Gear photo)

Frontpanel View. With its 9-inch extension collar filled, the Silverback is a tall, voluminous pack. The large gusseted front pocket is durable 210D Robic fabric, while the Gorilla’s is mesh. The bottom of the front pocket, side pockets, and lid are even more durable 210D Robic/Extreema Grid fabric (the Gorilla’s fabrics are 70D and 100D Robic).

What are Robic fabrics, now used in most of Gossamer Gear’s backpacks? Robic, made by Korea’s Hyosung Corporation, is a high-tenacity nylon fabric designed for applications where very high resilience and durability are needed. It surpasses ordinary Nylon 6 in tensile strength, tear strength, puncture resistance, and abrasion resistance. It has physical properties similar to Nylon 66 fabrics used for industrial purposes, at a lower cost. According to the manufacturer, this fabric can easily retain its original exterior even after long periods of use. In comparison, the familiar 210D Dyneema Gridstop contains super strong Spectra fibers in a grid pattern, but the rest of the fabric is ordinary Nylon.

Backpanel View. Again, the extension collar is completely filled in this photo. The new fitted floating top cap has a full width zipper and is removable, reducing the pack’s weight by 3.5 ounces. The pack does not have load levelers or hipbelt stabilizer straps.

Side View: Each side has two compression straps. Because the pack body depth is larger, the side pockets are also larger, wide enough to hold two 1-liter bottles or all of your rain gear in one pocket. The extension collar is full in this photo.

A closer look at the new top cap. It has a full-width zipper on the opposite side. The photo also gives a closer look at Gossamer Gear’s 210D Robic/Extreema Grid fabric that is used in high stress and high abrasion areas. The extension collar is not filled in this photo.

Shoulder Harness. The Silverback has Gossamer Gear’s new narrower, thicker, contoured shoulder straps, which are more female friendly. They are 2.75 inches wide and 5/8-inch thick. The hipbelt is 4.5 inches wide and is interchangeable with the Gorilla and Mariposa. Note the depth of the filled right pocket.

Gossamer Gear’s traditional mesh pad sleeve is a foundation feature; it holds a lightweight corrugated foam pad that serves as a backpanel and is removable for use as a sit pad. A ThinLight Pad or inflatable sleeping pad can be substituted if desired. 

A closer look at the air mesh lining on the shoulder straps and hipbelt.

  

The hipbelt pockets are significantly larger and deeper than previous ones, expanding out as much as 2.5 inches. The same hipbelt (available in three sizes) is used on the Gorilla, Silverback, and Mariposa.

Side pocket closer look. Because they are wider on the Silverback, the side pockets will hold a lot, like two water bottles, or a 2-liter flask, or a rainsuit. With heavier weight they hang down below the bottom of the pack.

With the top lid removed the pack's extension collar becomes a drawcord/rolltop closure at shoulder strap height with two cross straps. The straps are not long enough to cross over a filled extension collar. This mode reduces the pack's volume, cuts 3.5 ounces of weight, and lowers pack height for ducking under branches.

Testing

 

During late fall and winter months I was able to test the Silverback on one 4-day southern Utah canyon country backpacking trip (left), one 6-day ski-in hut trip (right), and four day hikes carrying different loads. In the left photo I am carrying 2 gallons of water, so the pack is very heavy. On the right I carried about 25 pounds on an 11-mile ski trip to the cabin.

As with the updated Gorilla, the frame anchored to the back of a stiffened hipbelt effectively transfers weight to the hips and comfortably carries a heavier load. On my Utah backpacking trip I carried 2 gallons of water at times for trail use and dry camping, which bumped pack weight up to 30 pounds or more. The pack handled the weight well, although (for me) it was still a lot of weight.

My pack load testing on dayhikes corroborated my backpacking experience. With loads under 25 pounds, the pack will transfer all of the weight to my hips and carry it very comfortably. At 30 pounds the pack puts about one-fourth of the weight on my shoulders, which is still comfortable, but I can feel the weight more. The sweet spot is 20 to 25 pounds.

The larger hipbelt pockets are wonderful compared to the old ones. I could barely get my compact camera in the old ones, but the new pockets have loads of room.

The top pocket fits well and is a very functional component of the pack. The net weight increase is small compared to the Over the Top Flap previously used on Gossamer Gear backpacks, but it provides a lot more useful volume in the right place. The top pocket is perfect for stowing a jacket or rainwear. If it’s not needed it can easily be removed to save weight, or it can be used as a daypack, using a light cord or strap around the waist to carry it.

When the extension collar is filled, the Silverback gains a lot more volume and it is a tall pack, as shown in the Description section, about level with the top of my head. That results in frequent brushes when ducking under tree branches. It's much less of an issue when the pack is filled to the bottom of the extension collar, which is shoulder height.

Assessment

With the addition of a floating top pocket, the Gorilla and Silverback move one step closer to a “conventional” top-loader backpack. That’s not a bad thing; that feature set is hard to improve on. However, Gossamer Gear’s DNA is still intact with its signature large front pocket and backpanel pad sleeve containing a removable sit pad. The very lightweight U-shaped contoured aluminum frame is another mainstay, so to speak.

The new Silverback incorporates all of the improvements introduced in the 2016 upgrade of the Gorilla pack. In my review of the 2016 Gorilla I stated “The Gorilla is now a very refined backpack, and still retains Gossamer Gear’s DNA for lightweight and functionality.” The new Silverback gets all of that, so it’s a very refined backpack from the get-go.

Very few manufactures have successfully incorporated so many lightweight functional features into a fully-featured workhorse backpack that weighs less then 2.5 pounds, and Gossamer Gear arguably does it the best. The Silverback is durable, full-featured, very functional, adjustable in volume, and comfortably carries a reasonable load.

Another way of saying this is that Gossamer Gear’s packs are targeted to those people who have successfully reduced the weight and volume of their gear kit, and can now reduce the weight and volume of their backpack as well. And their packs are also a good choice for anyone who intends to reduce the weight of their gear kit. Although the packs will handle a load of 30 pounds or more, they are at their best with 20-25 pounds of weight, which is where any enlightened backpacker will be.

The Silverback has a ton of volume. I had a hard time utilizing all the space. However the pack’s four side compression straps allow easy volume adjustment for smaller loads, or to use it as a daypack from camp. This is much more than I can say for Gossamer Gear’s Mariposa 60 backpack, which does not have any side compression straps.

This brings up the FAQ of which pack to get. Previously many buyers opted for the larger Mariposa pack because they feared the Gorilla was too small. However the Mariposa has the aforementioned drawback, so it is not a perfect solution. The Mariposa works best when it is fully expanded, and doesn’t have any volume reduction capability.

Even though the Silverback is 10 liters larger than the Gorilla, and utilizes heavier fabrics, the weight is just 2.65 ounces more (38.25 ounces versus 35.6 ounces, respectively, based on a size Large pack and size Medium hipbelt for both packs). Thus, for a person who carries a widely varying gear kit for different trips, or simply wants to make sure the pack is big enough, the Silverback is the perfect choice; it will easily adjust to the load size. It should meet the needs of any lightweight backpacker, or carry any higher volume/lighter weight load.

However, if you have a fairly standard gear kit that you consistently use, I recommend that you  measure the actual volume of your gear kit, add about 25% for consumables (food, water, and fuel), and match your pack choice to that volume. No sense carrying any more pack weight than you really need.

Overall, the Silverback fills the gap between the Gorilla and Mariposa, and is every bit as capable as the Gorilla while providing more volume. It handily answers the question of which pack to get because it has plenty of volume at the top end, and easily adjusts for smaller loads.