| NATIONAL PARKS QUICKLINKS |








Backpacker Magazine – January/February 2010
This best-overall pack's simple design will win over ultralighters and traditional backpackers alike.
Best Overall
“An awesomely simple design,” says Nyquist of the lightest pack in the test. The panel-loading packbag eschews multiple zippers, excess pockets, and internal dividers, but don’t be fooled by the stuff-it-and-go cleanliness: The Lite-Speed was also the most comfortable pack in the test. GoLite manages the feat by judiciously carving weight from places you won’t feel it (the packbag) and leaving key components intact where you will (the suspension, which has dual aluminum stays and a narrow plastic framesheet and easily carried 35 pounds).
Result: a pack that both ultralighters and traditional backpackers can love. The slim, body-contouring shoulder straps and hipbelt enhance mobility; with the pack fully loaded, Rochfort boot-skied down a snowfield in California’s Ansel Adams Wilderness. On the Colorado Trail, Dax carried six days’ worth of ultralight gear in the cavernous single compartment, and he raved about the expandable front shove-it pocket, which easily swallowed inevitable overflow. Other features: a top pocket for gloves and snacks, and two hipbelt and two water bottle pockets.
Tip: Look for closeout deals on the 2009 Lite-Speed this winter. The 2010 model ($150), available in February, will have the same internal suspension (with slightly more padding) and an updated packbag. GoLite says the low weight will not change.
> Capacity 3,000 cu. in.
> Weight 2 lbs. 10 oz. (men’s M)
> Sizes men’s M, L;
women’s S, M
> Price $150
> Info golite.com

International Travel
Navigation Center
BACKPACKER's Free Smartphone GPS App
Green Guide
READERS COMMENTS
Purchased the womens' model from Sunny Sports for $54.99!!!!! Will use for travel as I am a OBOW person. Like the conversion from 2400 cu in to 1000 cu in.
Posted: Apr 22, 2010 Kiki
I own the 2009 Litespeed, (which I got for about $70 on Sierra Trading Post and which can still be found online elsewhere). I have only used it for day hikes and on two weekend trips, carrying weights under 20 lbs for a distance of 60 miles or so total; but so far I love it. The material is water resistant, it has just enough padding and the medium fits well (6'1''w/shorter torso). The big stretchy front pocket catches whatever excess you might have (I used it for a 2L platapus, a rain shell, tent steaks, socks and had room to spare); the water bottle pockets each hold a 32oz nalgene without a problem. Tim is right, the 2009 is a 3000 cubic inches while the new 2010 is 2135 cubic inches. The 3000 cubic in. size is just enough to make this pack truly versatile enough for luxurious weekend hikes or minimalist week long endeavors. A reduction of 865 cu in. really makes the 2010 Litespeed an entirely different pack at the same weight. Anyone see the 2010 as an improvement?
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 BaltiMoose
Go lite!
Posted: Feb 26, 2010 bluefairyisgay
I would love to try this one...
Posted: Feb 21, 2010 bluefairyguy
Well they sure changed the packbag. They removed 15 L of storage! But they're right, the weight stayed the same....At least they weren't being deceptive (Note the thick layer of sarcasm slathered on there).
Posted: Feb 19, 2010 Tim
ADD A COMMENT