Gear review: Ula Ohm vs Golite Jam backpacks

I've been lately using two lightweigt backpacks side by side. I've used them actively for 6 months now, so I think I'm ready to give a non-scientific, purely subjective comparison.

One pack is the Ula Ohm (leftmost in pictures below). The other is a similar (slighly smaller) pack from Golite; the Golite Jam (on the right).  Both belong to the lightweight (not ultralight) category. And, although Ohm has a very light "kind of frame", I classify both of them in the same frameless category since they require some skill and attention to how you pack them in order to carry comfortably. (For details, check Hendrik's excellent how-to-pack essay.)



Starting from the back, here are the details:

A: hydration tube exits (Ohm+)

Both packs have two hydration tube exits (1 on each side). Ohm's solution is slightly more resistant to rain, while Jam's exits are more open. A small plus to Ohm.

B: haul loop

Both packs have proper haul loops which are invaluable, not only for ergonomic lifting, but also for protecting the (lightweight, thus not extremely sturdy) structures. The solutions are almost identical, Jam's being on a slightly better height and more visible, but practically a tie.

C: load lifters (Ohm++)

Most modern backpacks have load lifters, since they give more stability and move the center of gravity closer to the back. Well, except Jam does not. I find load lifters very useful, so a clear plus for Ohm.

D: reflectors

Not super-important in my opinion, but a small plus to Jam. Ohm has no reflectors in the back side (however, the pole loops in the front do reflect).

E: water bottle holsters

Ohm has unique (read: "strange"?) bottle holsters. These are essentially 4 adjustable (yellow) bungee cord loops (2 on both side). Theoretically they might be useful for storing "something" (however, I haven't so far figured out what that "something" could be). Luckily they can be removed to save a few grams.

Jam has no such thing, but I don't really care.

F: sternum strap

Both packs have sternum straps with proper adjustments (both width and height). Jam's strap stretches slightly for added comfort, and has a whistle, so a tiny plus for Jam. Both straps are fine, though.

G: hand loops (Ohm++)

Ohm has clever hand loops, which let me rest my wrists. They also help carrying some of the load and balancing the weight, especially if the pack is heavy. I've learned to like these a lot, so a big personal plus for Ohm. I've even concidered attaching similar loops to Jam as well, but lacking attachement points,  there is no easy way to do that.

H: hipbelt pockets (Ohm+)

This is a matter of taste, but Ohm's hipbelt pockets are not only bigger, but in my opinion also shaped better. Jam's pockets are of the typical "banana" shape, with proper room only in the middle, making their effective size clearly smaller. On the other hand, the banana shape also means no sharp corners, so Jam's pockets are less obstructive in use, at least in theory. Overall, I still prefer Ohm's solution.

Back material (Jam++)

Jam's back is made from mesh, which increases comfort a lot. Ohm's meshless front does not breathe well, making long carry a sweaty business. This is probably Jam's biggest plus over the Ohm.




Front:

I: Top compression strap

The compression strap makes the pack smaller, but also helps keeping the rain out. Both solutions work well. Ohm's lock machanism is sturdier, but haven't had any problems with Jam's lock either, so far.

J: Ice Axe/Pole loops.

I don't use these really, so no opinion.


K: Front (mesh) pocket (Ohm ++)

One of the most useful features, helping to keep small things easily at hand. Jam's pocket is bigger. But Ohm's pocket is made of flexible net. The net material allows storing wet items (e.g. tarp) which then drain during the walk. The fact that the net is semi-transparent also helps finding things. So overall, a clear plus for Ohm from me.

L: Compression straps (bottom) (Jam+)

A handy feature in Jam, making it essentially also a small day pack. I have a separate day pack, though, so not much use for me.



Side:

M: Compression cordage / (side) straps (Ohm+)

Help tightening the pack to make it more stable and easier to carry. Ohm's unique (non-flexi) cordage works super-nice, so a plus for Ohm over Jam's regular simple straps.

N: Suspension hoop

Jam is completely frameless, but Ohm has a slight "frame" made out of carbon fiber. Ula folks call this a "suspension hoop". It probable makes Ohm a bit more stable pack, but properly packed, I'm fine carrying totally frameless systems as well. The hoop also keeps the empty pack erect, making packing slightly easier. But I'd be totally fine even without it.

O: Side pockets

Side pockets are very useful for keeping at hand things that are needed during the hike (e.g. drink, snacks, rain coat). One of the most important features of any backpack. Both Ohm and Jam have nice side pockets that work really well in practice. A tie.

P: Hipbelt strap (Ohm+)

Ohm has adjustable hipbelt straps, while Jam doesn't. These are somewhat useful for removing extra slack, so a small plus for Ohm.




Closer look at the hipbelts (Jam++)

This is the area where Jam really shines over Ohm. In addition to the meshed back (already mentioned), the hipbelt of Jam is overall better. While Ohm's belt attaches to the sides, Jam's belt attaches to the middle, making almost full circle. Jam's belt is also wider. Overall, the area that Jam's belt covers is about twice the area of Ohm's. So a very clear plus to Jam in this important point.

Other stuff (Ohm+)

Ohm comes with some additional features (not shown in the pictures), that are somewhat handy:

- Hydration sleeve: a removable interior pocket for storng the hydration system (I use this actively with a Souce Widepack)
- Internal mesh pocket: a removable small pocket for storing for example your wallet or keys (I usually do not use this)

Summary

Size: Based on manufacturers' numbers Ohm is bigger in volume: Ohm 65 litres (3960 cu in), Jam 50 litres (3050 cu in).  The difference can also be seen in the pictures, and I can also verify it in practice: Ohm can hold significantly more stuff than Jam.

Weight: Despite the larger volume, Omh is actually lighter as measured on my kitchen scale: Ohm 760 g (26.8 oz), Jam 840 g (29.6 oz).

Ohm's pros: Ohm is better as a lightweight vehicle: larger but still lighter than Jam. Featurewise, it's also a clear winner: load lifters(!), hand loops(!), other components which can be easily added/removed (bottle holsters, hydration sleeve, internal mesh pocket), better front pocket, better hydration tube exits, better side compression straps, slightly better hipbelt pockets (in my opinion).

Jam's pros: Although Jam has less features and it is both smaller and heavier, there are two important things where this pack shines: Jam has a better hipbelt, and also better (mesh) back material, which make carrying it a joy! Jam also has the nice compression straps in the bottom, that shrink the pack to the size of a day pack.

Overall, Ohm is my choice for a lightweight 3-4 day backpack. It's really well built and strong, still very light. The details are designed well. I also like the removable features that help reducing the weight even more.

However, Jam is also a good pack if weight is not super critical. It is very durable and comfortable to carry. Not a bad choice either.

Tips & Tricks: Perfect compass combo

For a while I've been searching for a "modular compass set" that would be lightweight, reliable, easy to use, and that would work for both hiking and kayaking. I finally found the perfect set, so I want to share it here.

But why a "set", why not just a single compass? Because of speed AND accuracy. There is no single compass that is good for bothm, but I need both. In easy and familiar locations I want just a simple and quick compass that points the north, but for more challenging terrains/waters it's good to have a more accurate instrument at hand. With my set of two lightweight compasses I now have the perfect combination for any circumstance.

For quick navigation: Suunto Clipper



The latest addition to my gear is the simple and clear Suunto Clipper. It's a really handy small thing. During walking, snowshoeing or cross-country skiing I just clip it to the sleeve of my jacket or shirt. Sleeve is the perfect location since the compass is always directly visible there. Even a small effort, such as grasping a compass that hangs around your neck becomes tedious when you repeat it hundreds of times, but at the sleeve I can glance the compass with no extra effort. During kayaking I clip the Clipper to the belt of my spray skirt, which is the perfect spot.

The Clipper does not have much accuracy, but in most cases high accuracy is not needed. The weight of this small wonder is negligible: 4 g! I can even carry a spare one (or two!) with practically no weight penalty.

For accurate navigation: Suunto KB-20



When more accurate navigation is needed I use Suunto KB-20. This is a true precision instrument. By peeking in the hole at the bottom (below the Suunto logo left image) one can see a magnified image of the bearing scale that allows one degree accuracy! Such precision is useful whenever accuracy is needed, but especially at sea and other open areas where one can see distant targets.

Despite its precision, the KB-20 is not any heavier than a normal hand compass: 36g. Carried around the neck (with a nice flexible twine), this compass is not quite as easily available as the Clipper, but this level of accuracy is also needed less often. A nice surplus for kayaking is that the compass floats.

The real secret weapon is the combination of the two compasses. This enables both accurate and quick navigation modes with mere 40g total weight!

Gear review: MLD Grace Cuben Duo tarp

My experiments with tarping raise to the next level as the postman kindly delivered the long-waited Mountain Laurel Designs Grace Cuben duo tarp. It is made out of cuben fiber, the mystic ultralight "space-age" material. I've never seen or touched anything made of cuben, so opening the pack was pretty exciting. When I first touched the material it felt very ultralight, as expected, but also a bit fragile. This first impression is now proving to be wrong. After getting used to the almost super-natural lightness of cuben, I feel more and more confident with its durability.

I've tested the MLD tarp now in heavy wind and heavy rain, and it's turned out to give excellent shelter from both. Below is an image with the tarp together with my TGoat Ptarmigan bivy. On a kayak trip I was saving some weight by using paddle halves as the poles.

My Werner Camano paddle halves are about 110 cm high, just a few centimeters higher than MLD's own carbon poles designed for this particular tarp, so the match is perfect. On the front ridge line end, I utilize the whole length of the paddle, just sliding a small wood stick through the grommet to attach the paddle to the tarp.

In the rear end which should be about 30 cm lower than the front, I use a clove hitch to tie the rear ridge line to the stem of the paddle.

MLD's optional carbon poles (made by Easton) add 80 grams, but snap nicely to the grommets.

There are 8 attachment points (2 ridge line, 4 corners 2 sides). Each attachment point has an easily adjustable line lock. I went for the standard sewn-in line locks and the standard 3 mm (high-vis) line. The thick line is rather heavy (about 5 g/m), but there are also lighter options available on the MLD web site. The 3 mm line is also a bit stiff, perhaps even too sturdy for such a light tarp. I like the line locks a lot though, so I may just replace the line with narrower and lighter line later on.

Three inside loops to fix stuff, in this case the bivy.

View from the inside. Very spacious and luminous. The tarp covers about 260 x 205 cm (8'6" x 6'9"), i.e. a whopping 5.3 m² (57 ft²) area, which is more that enough for one, and plenty of space even for two persons.

Here's everything you need. Placed on top of the stuff sack, from left to right: 6 MLD's own titanium stakes for the sides and corners; 2 larger Easton aluminium stakes for the front and back ridge lines (not included with the tarp, I wanter to replace the small titanium stakes with larger ones in the ridge for their better grip); a white shock cord to attach my bivy; and last but not least, the tarp itself.

The weights are listed below. For most trips I'll carry the minimum set, 358 g in total. (The stuff sack is unnecessary as I'll pack everything in the external mesh pocket of my backpack.) Including the carbon fiber poles and stuff sack, the whole thing is still under 450 g. Not bad for a 2-person shelter!

		Weight g	Weight oz
Tarp		221	7.8
Lines	12 m x 4.9 g/m	59	2.1
Stakes ridge	2 x 14 g	28	1.0
Stakes side	6 x 8.25 g	50	1.7
MINIMUM WEIGHT SUM		358	12.6
Carbon fiber poles (optional)		80	2.8
Stuff sack		16	0.6
MAXIMUM WEIGHT SUM		454	16.0

Conclusion:

Pros: Very light, durable, easy to set up, easy to adjust line locks, spacious, good ventilation, no problem with condensation. Overall, I just love lying under the open tarp, being connected with the nature.

Cons: I'm not sure, but cuben feels like pretty sensitive to heat or sparkles, so I try to be very careful with fire. Other that that, I haven't found any problems with this great product.

My first experiences with bivy + tarp camping

Inspired by several ultralight blogs (especially Hiking in Finland), I'm now experimenting with bivy and tarp based camping. Although my current tent is pretty light (1.1 kg) and small, a tarp and bivy combination can potentially be much lighter.

Bivy. I recently purchased a Titanium Goat Ptarmigan bivy with a full net hood. It is very lightweight (only 214 g with stuff sack), but still provides good shelter from everything else than constant rain (that is for the tarp to take care of). The bottom fabric is completely waterproof, so there is no need for a separate ground cloth. The top fabric is very breathable, so condensation is not an issue at all. The full net hood provides magnificent views, but still keeps the bugs and mosquitos out (plenty of them in the Finnish summer!). The bivy can be used also with the fabric hood option, making the bivy completely closed. This feels a bit claustrophobic to me, but probably useful in extreme cold conditions. All in all, the TiGoat bivy is an excellent piece of gear. I'm sure I'll mostly carry the bivy instead of a tent in my future hiking and kayaking trips.

Tarp. If it's likely to rain, I'll place my bivy under a tarp. My only tarp at the moment is a Sea To Summit Ultra-Sil Tarp-Poncho. It very small even for one person in my opinion. The problem is that if there's any wind the tarp needs to be set up really low to give proper shelter. The STS poncho-tarp is also slightly heavy (350 g). I'll be replacing it with a lighter (218 g) and much roomier MLD Grace Cuben Duo tarp. Even the tiny poncho-tarp has proven to provide good shelter even in heavy rain, and with the added coverage of the MLD Duo, I'm sure it will be comfortable as well. I like the connection with the nature that the open structure provides, as well as the flexibility. A tarp can be set up in many ways to be used not only for sleeping, but for the other aspects of camping as well (cooking, playing cards, etc, you name it...). Last but not least, setting up the tarp in various ways is fun and creative, and improves your camping skills.

Images below show the setup. Inside the bivy there are my Therm-a-rest Ridgerest sleeping mat, and my (current) Haglöfs Goga 1S sleeping bag. The whole set weights about 1.8 kg and works well for 1+ season camping in Finland. After getting the MLD tarp, and replacing the sleeping bag with a 3 season down quilt, the weight will be down to about 1.5 kg (more reviews to come).

Tips & tricks: Finnish pancakes lightweight recipy

Finnish pancakes are flat and crispy, fried in plenty of butter. They are excellent with e.g. wild strawberries. Pancakes have lots of calories, but that's not a problem during kayaking or hiking, on the contrary. Usually getting enough calories is the issue.

Ready-made "pancake flour mixes" exist, but I like to do my own mix for better taste, and to know what I put in my mouth. Plus, making the own mix is super simple:

Dry incredients (for about 15 small pancakes):
- 2 dl wheat flours (some can be replaced by whole-wheat flours or barley flours, for example)
- 1/2 dl icing sugar ("tomusokeri", regular suger goes as well but does not mix as easily)
- 1 dl milk powder (e.g. Valio)
- 3 table spoons whole egg powder (e.g. Travellunch), or egg white powder

For frying: appr. 50 g butter.

Mix all the dry incredients in a lightweight bottle (at least 7 dl), and off you go. Keeps several days in shade. When you're ready for the feast, here's how you prepare the batter:

- add 4 dl non-salt water over the dry incredients
- cork the bottle and shake well for about 1 minute
- wait for about 10 minutes
- shake again quickly

Frying inctructions:

- heat the pan well
- add some butter and let it melt
- pour a flat layer of batter straight from the bottle, fry on one side
- turn the pancake over and fry on the other side

The gear I'm using:

- Bushcooker wood burning stove + Trangia burner
- frying pan 202 g (I use a small cast aluminium "egg pan") + Trangia tongs
- wooden spatula 16 g

The gear works well, but the alcohol burner needs to be refilled pretty often. A gas stove would probably work better.

Intentional weight loss 6: LaSportiva Crosslite shoes and Trekmates gore-tex socks

On my distal extremities I've used to wear my old pair of Salomon hiking boots. Warm. Dry. Good ankle support. But heavy (1705 g / pair)! In line with my new lightweigth fuss I obviously started looking at lighter options, such as trail runners. La Sportiva Crosslite mountain running shoes were my choice. Besides being very light (630 g / pair) they're really comfortable, have a good grip, and last but not least: they're simply beautiful!

The shoes are very breathable, so they dry really fast. And for the really wet conditions I got a pair of gore-tex socks. I chose Trekmates Amphibian Gore-Tex socks (72 g / pair). I don't have prior experience with gore-tex socks, so it was pretty much a blind pick. But I'm happy with the quality and design of these socks.

	Weight
Old	1.7 kg
New (shoes + socks)	0.7 kg
Saving	-1.0 kg
Saving (%)	-59 %

Verdict: Weight saving is significant, almost 60%. Support for the ankle is obviously not as good as with the hiking boots, but now that my backpack weights over 5 kg less than before, there is less need for ankle support. After testing the new socks and shoes in various conditions, I like them a lot. I like especially the "flap" that keeps the shoelaces untangled, and the mud out. No going back to the old heavy ones.

MSR Reactor vs Primus EtaExpress: Side-by-side review

Postman kindly brought me a MSR Reactor gas stove as part of Hiking in Finland's MSR Reactor passaround (thanks a lot Hendrik!). This stove is claimed to be "the most efficient all-condition stove system" on the planet. Since I already own another claimed-to super-stove, the Primus EtaExpress, I foud this is a great opportunity to compare the two products side by side.

I've been really impressed by the quality of Primus EtaExpress, and MSR Reactor is perfectly on par. Both are extremely well designed and built. They are obviously high quality products, so the differences are only in the small details.

Pictures below show the stoves side by side packed, opened, and assembled. (MSR always on the left side, Primus to the right.) The stoves are very similar. Both have a burner, a pot with heat exchanger, a lid, an integrated handle and a pot holder cloth. But there are also some slight differences. The lid of Primus also doubles as a small frying pan. Primus has a separate (flimsy) windshield, while MSR's wind shield is integrated with the burner. Primus has a piezo igniter, a feature that MSR lacks.




The measurements reveal that Primus is slightly more compact of the two. The side-by-side measures (measured with regular household equipment) are:

• Weight (without fuel):  MSR 488 g, Primus 454 g
• Complete packed volume: MSR 2.1 L, Primus 1.7 L
• Pot volume (filled to the top): MSR 1.7 L, Primus 1.2 L 

Boil test

The structure of the assembled MSR is clearly more closed than Primus'. This indicates better wind-proofness. To test the performance of the stoves, I set up a small "lab" in our bathroom. In addition to the regular watch and thermometer stuff, I was able to produce "artificial wind" using the AiramAir HIJ-2.6 air-conditioner. In its "fan" mode this air-conditioner is able to produce a steady 5 m/s wind (measured with Silva Alba anemometer).



I measured the temperature curves while heating 1 litre of 17°C water to 100°C using the full power of the stoves. First measures were done without wind; both stoved performed equally. The boil times were slightly longer than the claimed 3 minuted, about 3 min 10 sec, but the gas canister was only half-full. (The same Primus gas canister was used throughout the test.)

In second measurements I started the 5 m/s wind when the water temperature reached 50°C. This brought up an clear difference. Wind had practically no effect whatsoever on the MSR performance, but the Primus heat curve slope was clearly affected. (See the graph below.) The three curves are practically identical, the temperature rising steadily about 26-27 degrees per minute. The fourth curve also rises identically, but, when the wind was started at 50 degrees, the slope of the Primus curve is halved, to only 13 degrees per minute. Knowing that water's heat capacity is 4.182 kJ/(K·kg), we can calculate the heating powers. These values turn into 1.9kW heating power for both stoves without wind. The MSR stove drops only slightly to 1.8kW when wind is present, but Primus' drops down to 0.9kW. Conclusion: both stoves are equally effective in windless conditions, but at 5 m/s steady wind MSR Reactor is clearly more effective than Primus EtaExpress.



Summary

Both products are excellent, but there are some differences as well.

Primus EtaExpress strengths:

• lower prize
• smaller pack volume
• lighter
• includes a frying pan
• includes a piezo igniter (which does not work particularly well in wind, though)

MSR Reactor strengths:

• larger pot
• quicker to assemble, less moving parts
• slightly better stability
• clearly more efficient in windy conditions

Weaknesses: There is only one weakness in my opinion; both stoves are not good for simmering. They are so powerful that to simmer one needs to turn the gas down to the extreme minimum. This is very difficult, and especially in windy conditions it is very easy to turn the gas off completely. Trangia stoves for example are clearly more suitable to simmering. Whether simmering is important or not, that is subject to personal preference. But if you like simmered outdoor food, other stoves might be the way to go.