New Packs from Kifaru 2024

[S.Clancy]

I agree with you. I think it’s kind of ironic the amount of weight we are talking about here right? I mean we aren’t talking about a 10 or even 5 pound difference. Depending on the frame and bag configuration we are talking about 1-3 pounds. Obviously if you buy one of the kifaru packs that’s loaded down with pocket after pocket it’s different. But in reality comfort under a load is the most important thing ever. Confidence in the straps and buckles when you decide to load the hell out of it matters. Enough straps and bucks to secure a ton of meat matters.

The goal is to always be coming out with meat right? So why not have a pack that can handle whatever you are putting in it? I venture to think the guys that are focusing on a ultralight weight pack never put 140lbs on their back for 4 miles.

Half a bull elk + camp count?

 

[S.Clancy]

What does a 26” duplex lite frame weigh?

3lb 9oz based on a thread I found but I don’t see a weight on their website?

The rhino reminded me of ecko but beats my initial impression of the K. Ultimately don’t really care what the logo is though as long as it’s not like a hammer and sickle or something…

Plus, you had to add over half a pound of straps and K clips.

 

[mt100gr.]

Some of us have 13 lb base weights and appreciate that our other pack doesn't come in a pound+ over spec. My Kifaru frame weighed more than my entire pack does now and carried weight worse (for me).

This^^

I've owned all of them and a variety of bags for each. My current SG Terminus weighs just a hair more than the competitors frames alone.

By the time I had some of the bigger Kifaru packs the way I needed them, they were in the 8-9lb range...

I still have a barely used duplex light frame in case I just have to try a bag design, but it's been in a box since a sale fell thru....

 

[deadwolf]

I completely understand counting ounces and wanting the lightest pack possible, but it shouldn’t come at a penalty of your pack not fitting and carrying the weight comfortably. You WILL NOT notice the extra pound or two on a frame and bag if it fits you perfectly and carries weight well. But you sure will feel it if things don’t fit properly! Buy the frame and suspension that fits you the best and don’t look back. Get in the gym if you really need that two pounds back : )

New Kifaru frame and suspension looks great, I’d love to try it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StopMakingSense]

If you're making or breaking a fly in because your pack weighs an extra pound you have other spots to cut weight.

Looking forward to the new bags they have coming out. I'll be getting a new frame because these packs flat out truck. I've never had one let me down and crumple because of weight.

 

[SkunkCabbage]

@Kenneth@Kifaru out of curiosity how is Anders finding the 25" frame in comparison to the duplex lite. Us tall folk need all the load lifting we can get at times with these pack outs

 

[strongarm]

I completely understand counting ounces and wanting the lightest pack possible, but it shouldn’t come at a penalty of your pack not fitting and carrying the weight comfortably. You WILL NOT notice the extra pound or two on a frame and bag if it fits you perfectly and carries weight well.

@deadwolf I couldn't agree with this more. Don't forget durability in this conversation, too. Some stated "low weight" pack doesn't do much good if there's a failure.

I have a former daypack that I used to love. It was a higher-end brand that will remain nameless. It was a great pack...right up until it wasn't. For the specific use of day hiking on trails it was great. For East coast day hunting with minimal day gear it was also great. But after using it for high-mileage DIY Western day hunting out of a base camp loaded out with necessary Western hunting gear and optics (85mm spotter and tripod) it was awful. Not only was it woefully uncomfortable, I had multiple failures in stitching throughout the pack--including the internal frame stays blowing out of their retention pockets. While the dry pack was relatively light and many folks would be drawn to that number, it didn't work for that specific use.

After sending it to a 3rd party shop for repair and reinforcement on my dime in the off-season—as I wasn't going to blame the brand nor expect them to fix a problem that may or may not been a manufacturing issue but instead my choice to load up with optics & Western gear—I tried to use it another year. More back pain and more failures. It would have been far better for that pack to have been built better at the cost of additional weight for me to 1) have not been in pain and 2) to not have initial failures year one and additional failures year two (even after repair and reinforcement). I think the manufacturer was chasing low weight at the expense of performance and durability.

I believe folks should more actively take a holistic view of their use of their gear vs. looking at one line in a spec sheet—the weight row—which too many times seems to become the arbiter of a purchase decision, for winning bragging rights in a mythical low weight contest, or be the determinate for that pack being considered "good" or "bad" based on stated weight. If it's more comfortable and it holds up, weight becomes less relevant. For me and my decisions, weight is very much a relative term based on my intended use and the associated comfort and durability of a pack.

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

@deadwolf I couldn't agree with this more. Don't forget durability in this conversation, too. Some stated "low weight" pack doesn't do much good if there's a failure.

I have a former daypack that I used to love. It was a higher-end brand that will remain nameless. It was a great pack...right up until it wasn't. For the specific use of day hiking on trails it was great. For East coast day hunting with minimal day gear it was also great. But after using it for high-mileage DIY Western day hunting out of a base camp loaded out with necessary Western hunting gear and optics (85mm spotter and tripod) it was awful. Not only was it woefully uncomfortable, I had multiple failures in stitching throughout the pack--including the internal frame stays blowing out of their retention pockets. While the dry pack was relatively light and many folks would be drawn to that number, it didn't work for that specific use.

After sending it to a 3rd party shop for repair and reinforcement on my dime in the off-season—as I wasn't going to blame the brand nor expect them to fix a problem that may or may not been a manufacturing issue but instead my choice to load up with optics & Western gear—I tried to use it another year. More back pain and more failures. It would have been far better for that pack to have been built better at the cost of additional weight for me to 1) have not been in pain and 2) to not have initial failures year one and additional failures year two (even after repair and reinforcement). I think the manufacturer was chasing low weight at the expense of performance and durability.

I believe folks should more actively take a holistic view of their use of their gear vs. looking at one line in a spec sheet—the weight row—which too many times seems to become the arbiter of a purchase decision, for winning bragging rights in a mythical low weight contest, or be the determinate for that pack being considered "good" or "bad" based on stated weight. If it's more comfortable and it holds up, weight becomes less relevant. For me and my decisions, weight is very much a relative term based on my intended use and the associated comfort and durability of a pack.

Everything is a compromise. I count ounces but only so I can redistribute them elsewhere, my base weight is staying about the same most of the time. I have a 5.5lbs rifle so I can put a can and 30oz scope on it. I cut 2lbs off my base pack weight to carry an extra pound in tripod/spotter weight. I have a light sleeping bag/pad to carry a burlier tent. It's all part of an equation and can be tweaked depending on the hunt/gear.

Luckily, I do not think a lighter pack is a compromise anymore at the top end (assuming it fits you well). Very little experience with Kifaru because their base weights are a non starter for me when there are so many great options out there. I am sure it'll sell like crazy though and be comfortable.

 

[SkunkCabbage]

@Kenneth@Kifaru out of curiosity how is Anders finding the 25" frame in comparison to the duplex lite. Us tall folk need all the load lifting we can get at times with these pack outs

Did some digging. He's been apparently using the new frame without issues for the load lifters. Duplex Tactical is being discontinued.

Duplex lite isn't going to see the foam upgrade the ark does.
Tactical frame being discontinued.

 

[strongarm]

Everything is a compromise.

100%. Compromise and balance in the pro-con analysis.

 

[TheBootBowhunting]

Duplex lite isn't going to see the foam upgrade the ark does.

I’d understand this if they are discontinuing the duplex lite, but why not use the more durable foam? You could add ounces with the heavier foam to the duplex lite to create a bigger gap in weight for the Ark for marketing purposes. it’s not like the duplex lite is an economy frame, doesn’t seem like it should have lower quality foam.

I don’t plan on switching from duplex lite, but I’d pay the weight penalty for a more durable foam next time I need to replace straps or belt. I guess that how things work with updated models though.

 

[trophyhill]

Anyone wanna buy a slightly used Tactical Frame. Ima git me one a them Ark frames. And no the Hoodlum doesn't go with it

 

[jppedersen48]

Aron talking about the testing that was done seems promising for durability. I don't expect to use it as a pull up bar when in the field. I don't think I'll rush to buy on 2/15 but will eventually get one.

 

[EmperorMA]

Looks nice but with the poor customer service still pervasive, I’ll pass.

 

[TheBootBowhunting]

Looks nice but with the poor customer service still pervasive, I’ll pass.

Seems like you should probably explain the situation at this point. “It’s not worth my time” is fine, but you’ve had the time to go into a “kifaru 2024” thread and post 3 separate posts talking about the poor customer service. Might as well find the time to explain it.

 

[roosiebull]

I completely understand counting ounces and wanting the lightest pack possible, but it shouldn’t come at a penalty of your pack not fitting and carrying the weight comfortably. You WILL NOT notice the extra pound or two on a frame and bag if it fits you perfectly and carries weight well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the hunting I do, I have always been of the same mindset. I do think there are people who have plausible arguments for wanting to shed weight, but it should never be at the cost of heavy load comfort/ability

My kifaru setup was certainly heavier than most of my packs I’ve owned, but prior to getting the pack I currently use, the kifaru carried really heavy loads well, and better than others, and the stability with a really heavy load was exceptional.

I never complained about the empty weight of kifaru, because they felt good and stable when I needed it the most, and I was happy to accept the couple pounds extra for that

I have no doubt this new frame will be awesome, and would have zero durability concerns. It will be a great system.

My current pack is all I could ask for in a hunting pack, so I won’t be getting one, but looking forward to reports when a bunch of people get some use out of them. I know this will be a stellar frame, and if it wasn’t for k4, I’d be getting one.

I always root for kifaru and still own and use a good amount of their gear, and I want them to keep doing well. Competition drives innovation, we are all better off because of it, and we certainly don’t want to see American companies lose momentum.

The new frame looks pretty sweet, and if they improved what they had and shaved a little weight without compromise, even better.

 

[Grady.J]

I’d understand this if they are discontinuing the duplex lite, but why not use the more durable foam? You could add ounces with the heavier foam to the duplex lite to create a bigger gap in weight for the Ark for marketing purposes. it’s not like the duplex lite is an economy frame, doesn’t seem like it should have lower quality foam.

I don’t plan on switching from duplex lite, but I’d pay the weight penalty for a more durable foam next time I need to replace straps or belt. I guess that how things work with updated models though.

Agreed. I've got a duplex lite and burned through a set of shoulder straps in a couple seasons, and I'm not even a very hard user. I don't see how someone like a guide could even get a full season before they're about as comfortable as seatbelt webbing.

I just picked up a Stone Glacier, partly to try, and partly because I don't feel I should have to spend $150(Canadian) every couple years to replace major pack components.

 

[ljalberta]

Agreed. I've got a duplex lite and burned through a set of shoulder straps in a couple seasons, and I'm not even a very hard user. I don't see how someone like a guide could even get a full season before they're about as comfortable as seatbelt webbing.

I just picked up a Stone Glacier, partly to try, and partly because I don't feel I should have to spend $150(Canadian) every couple years to replace major pack components.

I’ve worn through both SG and Kifaru shoulder straps. That being said, it seems the shoulder straps on my Terminus are holding up longer than my previous set on my Xcurve. Not sure if SG made a change there.

I’ve also seen Exo K2 lumbar pads require replacement. I think it’s just the nature of foam products.

But, here’s hoping the new Kifaru foam extends the shelf life a couple extra seasons.

 

[Grady.J]

I’ve worn through both SG and Kifaru shoulder straps. That being said, it seems the shoulder straps on my Terminus are holding up longer than my previous set on my Xcurve. Not sure if SG made a change there.

I’ve also seen Exo K2 lumbar pads require replacement. I think it’s just the nature of foam products.

But, here’s hoping the new Kifaru foam extends the shelf life a couple extra seasons.

I'd expect it to eventually, but I was disappointed how quickly the kifaru ones wore out. I've heard more people talk about kifaru foam wearing out quickly than other brands(confirmation bias maybe), so I'm hoping to get some more longevity out of the stone glacier. I don't see replacement shoulder straps on the SG website, so I guess we'll find out when the time comes. A replacement belt is $50usd cheaper than a replacement duplex belt, so I'd assume straps would be a similar ballpark.

Maybe bad timing too, I might have gone for the new Ark frame if I'd known about it when I bought the SG, and just kept my current bag on it.

 

[aclawrence]

Just going by the video alone it looks like the new frame is going to be pretty durable. Also I don’t think Aron would go the carbon route if he hasn’t had the chance to use the crap out of it and make sure it’s good to go. I wonder if there will be different frame length options. 25” is going to be too tall for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk