Tests say claimed backpack volumes not even close

I know a lot of brands are starting to stipulate that their total volume includes exterior pockets, but that seems like it might be even MORE subjective and hard to measure.

The article doesn’t say, but I hope they were careful to get the correct claimed volumes.  Most mfrs seem to quote volume only for one torso size, usually Medium.  Until I sold the smaller one, I used to own both a Large (21″ to 24″) and an Extra Large (24″ +) ULA Catalyst.  The latter has noticeably greater main-body volume.

I don’t think this articles explanation makes sense. They write:

“We suspect that volumes labeled on backpacks are influenced by marketing and giving consumers what they think they want in a pack…..Brands advertise their pack volume based on what consumers think they want in a pack.”

That sounds scandalous but doesn’t make sense because gear companies can simply design a pack to be the desired size -they don’t have to make a pack in the wrong size and then lie about the size to woo customers.

And they write:
“We found that we could fit the same gear in a so-called 35 L pack that we could fit in a 55-L pack.”

Which again sounds scandalous but it’s really not when you realize it’s simply because they are comparing dissimilar specs. Both of the “large” packs they review (Mariposa 60, Air Blast 55) openly disclose that their headline number includes the external pockets and the internal capacity is less at 36-42L.  So the fact that they are similar to other packs that claim 35-40L for just the main compartment shouldn’t be surprising. The real message here is not that the specs are off, but rather than customers should read them.

Comparing their observations to the actual claimed specs (e.g. main compartment vs main compartment) these packs really aren’t that far off. The average main compartment spec is 37L and they observe an average of 36.5L – but of course that doesn’t make for much of a headline. A few are off by a decent amount (up to 8L) but nothing like 20L as you’d think from their text (e.g. 55L is same as 35L).

Dan makes a lot of sense.

Of course this is probably the only instance of specs creating false expectations.  Hahahahahahahaha

However … When doing a survey of internal frame packs I found that while most mfrs were fairly honest (ie my measurements matched their claims), a few mfrs were blatantly dishonest.

One I remember stuffed the main bag really full and recorded that volume, then they emptied the main bag and stuffed the back pocket really full and recorded that volume, then they repeated that for the pocket in the lid. Then they added those numbers up and claimed the result.

But you cannot do that in real life. If the main bag is full, then the back pocket is almost unusable, and so on. I challenged them, and they admitted that was how they did it and if I didn’t like it I could go jump. Known brand, too.

Cheers

Or, a scary thought, they don’t really know.
But they do know what their competition is claiming.

I once asked a local mfr of sleeping bags how he tested his bags, given that he had ratings like -10 C, -20 C and so on. His honest reply (because I knew him) was that he didn’t ‘test’, he just compared his bags with the competition.

Maybe Standards do matter?

Cheers